Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING LAND (REGISTRATIONS)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Attorney-General how many first registrations of title of building estates where the price paid per acre exceeded £5,000 were made by Her Majesty's Land Registry during the financial year 1960–61.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): This information is not readily available and it could not be obtained without a wholly disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.

Mr. Boyden: Is the Attorney-General aware that this is an extremely important problem? Is the Chief Land Registrar just putting it in for fun when he states in his annual report that an increase of this kind of registration at this cost will have a serious effect on housing in the provinces? Surely this is a matter on which information should be ascertained, and one concerning which the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be thinking of introducing legislation.

The Attorney-General: The statement made in the Chief Registrar's report was not based on any statistical records kept by the Land Registry but was simply based on observation during the year.

Oral Answers to Questions — STREATFEILD COMMITTEE (REPORT)

Mr. Cleaver: asked the Attorney-General why there has been delay in the implementation of the Report of the Streatfeild Committee so far as criminal cases in Birmingham are concerned: and

what action he proposes to take to alleviate the delay in hearing civil actions.

The Attorney-General: The only delay in implementing the Streatfeild Committee's recommendations is that the new assize arrangements will be brought into operation in May this year instead of in January as had originally been hoped. This short postponement, which was of general application and not confined to Birmingham, was due partly to the economic situation and partly to the desirability of awaiting the enactment of legislation authorising the appointment of more judges. The new arrangements will come into force in time for the summer assizes and I hope they will go far towards reducing the delays in the hearing of civil as well as criminal cases.

Mr. Cleaver: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we are very pleased to hear that Answer? Would he bear in mind that, as far as civil cases are concerned, it is not thought that the relief which might primarily go to cases of crime would be restricted in civil cases? Is my right hon. and learned Friend further aware that there are a number of plaintiffs today who, under pressure of delay and because they are in need of money, are frequently accepting settlements on disadvantageous terms and against their legal advice?

The Attorney-General: My noble Friend is fully aware of the congestion in the lists of cases awaiting trial, and that was one of the reasons that led to the appointment of the Streatfeild Committee. The new arrangements proposed are flexible and they can and will be changed if experience shows that they do not allow of sufficient time for the disposal of the business of the courts.

Oral Answers to Questions — BREACH OF PROMISE AND RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS

Mr. Lipton: asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to abolish causes of action for breach of promise of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights.

The Attorney-General: No.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Attorney-General aware that as regards breach of promise


public opinion would welcome the abolition of this Victorian relic of sex inequality, which is quite out of place in modern conditions? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that, as regards restitution of conjugal rights, even High Court judges are beginning to talk about the meaningless mumbo-jumbo entailed in that kind of proceeding?

The Attorney-General: As far as the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is concerned, I am not aware of any change in public opinion with regard to breach of promise since he last asked me the same Question on 12th April, 1960. The hon. Gentleman then referred to the inequality between the sexes and I then told him that it is open to a man to sue for breach of promise as well as for a woman. As far as the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question with regard to conjugal rights is concerned, I am aware of the observations made by a county court judge recently. The Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce did not recommend the abolition of that remedy, which is usually a paving step towards securing other relief.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYSIAN FEDERATION

Commission of Inquiry

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on progress towards the realisation of the Malaysian Federation.

Mr. Strachey: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what further steps he now proposes to take to facilitate the merger of the Federation of Malaya with Singapore and the British territories in Borneo.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Bernard Braine): Since my right hon. Friend's statement on 28th November, the Commission of Inquiry has been set up, under the chairmanship of Lord Cobbold.

Mr. Brockway: Whilst I welcome this proposal for a Malaysian Federation, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he appreciates that Singapore is likely

to be the critical area? In order to secure the support of its population, does the proposal include the right of Singapore to equal status as a State within the Federation? Does it include citizenship rights for all who are born in Singapore?

Mr. Braine: That is another and wider question. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to put it down on the Order Paper.

Mr. Strachey: Will the hon. Gentleman state the terms of reference of the Commission. May we rely on him to see to it that the British Government appreciate the overriding importance and urgency of this matter and do everything in their power to facilitate a successful outcome?

Mr. Braine: Yes, Sir. The terms of reference are to ascertain the views of the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak on the issues of greater Malaysian integration. I entirely agree with the thought behind the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The object is to take the views of the people concerned and then, in the light of those views, to make recommendations.

Sir J. Barlow: Will my hon. Friend make sure that the rights and privileges of the indigenous populations of Sarawak and North Borneo are carefully preserved? Is he aware that these people are not nearly so well organised as the Chinese living in the principal towns of those countries.

Mr. Braine: Yes, Sir. That is one of the purposes of the Commission of Inquiry.

Mr. Strachey: While appreciating the point behind the question of the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not agree that the rights and privileges of the aborigines of these areas will be far more seriously prejudiced if this project does not come to fruition than ever they will be by anything which happens if it does?

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Skilled Manpower

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he accepts the recommendation of paragraph 47 (b) of Command Paper


No. 1586, 7th Report of the Overseas Migration Board, that Great Britain's ability to provide for increased numbers of skilled and professional men and women for service in Commonwealth countries should be strengthened; and what steps he has taken, since the publication of the Report, to represent these views to the Government bodies concerned.

Mr. Braine: Yes, Sir. It is very desirable that we should be able to meet requests from other Commonwealth Governments for skilled manpower to help in the implementation of their development programmes. As to the second part of the Question, the Oversea Migration Board's recommendation has been brought to the notice of the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Labour, the Department for Technical Co-operation and the Office of the Minister for Science; and, because of its special interest in the subject, the Robbins Committee on Higher Education.

Mr. Boyden: I am grateful for that answer as far as it goes. Can the hon. Gentleman be a little more precise, however? On Tuesday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in answering a similar question, was very vague. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when we can expect to see some tangible results in the Ministry of Education and the Treasury in relation to say, raising the school leaving age in England, offering sixth form scholarships, or increasing maintenance allowances, so that our own stocks of people for these purposes are increased?

Mr. Braine: As I understood it, my right hon. Friend said yesterday that every effort is being made to meet all requests from overseas Governments. I agree that every effort should be made. British "know-how" is more than a valuable export; it is a vital thread in the fabric of Commonwealth relations.

Mr. Walker: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of establishing one central Commonwealth employment bureau, whereby any Commonwealth country in need of skilled people could advertise its requirement in that bureau and thus notify the jobs concerned to all those in this country possessing the necessary skill?

Mr. Braine: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Department of Technical Co-operation was set up to assist recruiting of that kind. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman make it his business to tell the Minister for Science that the views expressed in the Report of the Overseas Migration Board appear to be somewhat in conflict with those in the Report on Scientific Manpower? Will he ask his noble Friend for his comments?

Mr. Braine: I do not think that there is anything very surprising in that. There may be some occupations where the emigration of skilled and professional men from this country would cause difficulty and concern, but I think it is generally agreed that we should make every effort, where possible, to meet the requests of Commonwealth countries.

Commonwealth Settlement Acts

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether, in accordance with the recommendations of the Oversea Migration Board, the Government intend to renew the Commonwealth Settlement Act when it expires this year.

Mr. Braine: Yes, Sir. It is proposed to introduce legislation during the present Session to renew the Commonwealth Settlement Acts for a further five years.

Mr. Fisher: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am grateful for that Answer which will, I know, be acceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in this matter, and also to the main receiving countries in the Commonwealth?

Blackburn Young Men's Christian Association (Grant)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations why the Blackburn Young Men's Christian Association has not yet received the £10,000 grant awarded to it under the Government's Overseas Students Welfare Expansion Programme.

Mr. Braine: I understand that the hon. Lady has received full information about this case from my noble friend.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Member aware that I have received no satisfaction at all in this matter from his noble Friend? Is he aware that proposals were put forward by the Y.M.C.A. National Council as long ago as last October which would have enabled this grant to be paid, but that no grant has yet been made? Is he also aware that the Y.M.C.A. in Blackburn has had to incur bank facilities for an overdraft of up to £20,000 to launch this scheme and has promised to pay back £10,000 by the end of this month, and that it is running up very heavy bank charges and that the whole scheme is in grave difficulties owing to the Government's failure to proceed?

Mr. Braine: The terms of the original offer were that the grant was intended to finance the last £10,000 of the project and at the appropriate time it would be paid over to meet progress payments on the contract. I understand that the first of these payments became due in mid-January. There is a temporary difficulty arising out of the fact that where public money is disbursed proper accounting procedures must be followed. Precisely because of the very proper concern which the hon. Lady has shown, I would like to suggest that if she could find the time to come and see me I shall be pleased to discuss these matters with her.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

Constitution

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when the conference on the review of the Constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland will be resumed; and what will be the basis of representation of Governments and political parties.

Mr. Braine: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) on 16th November.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is it proposed to hold up the constitutional review until

a general election in Northern Rhodesia is held on the basis of a new constitution? How long is that delay likely to be?

Mr. Braine: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, my right hon. Friend said in his statement that until elections have taken place the review might be held up, and that we must also consider what should be the interim steps. I do not think that I should say anything further now, having regard to the fact that my right hon. Friend is now in Salisbury reviewing the whole situation with the Federal Prime Minister.

Mr. Healey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 14 months have passed since this conference was adjourned? Is this not a terrible indictment of the Government for their dithering over the situation in Northern Rhodesia in this past year?

Mr. Braine: Nothing of the kind. This is a very delicate and difficult problem. It is essential that we get the right answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAKISTAN

Vaccination Certificates

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will consult the Pakistan Government with a view to their ensuring the validity of vaccination certificates of their nationals who are emigrating to Great Britain.

Mr. Braine: Without accepting in any way the implications in the Question, I can assure my hon. Friend that we have been and are in close touch with the Pakistan authorities on the measures which we and they are taking to halt the spread of infection.

Dr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that confidence has been shaken in the quality of the certificates produced by Pakistanis entering this country? With a view to restoring that confidence, can he perhaps give us rather more detail by publishing a report on the subject.

Mr. Braine: I am not at all sure about this question of confidence. I understand that for well over a month the Pakistan Government have been taking extremely strict precautions. I would like to add


that, out of 7,600 Pakistanis who came here during December and January, we know of only five who developed smallpox—and all five had valid certificates of vaccination.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Constitution

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what request he has received from the Government of Cyprus for a modification of the Constitution.

Mr. Braine: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on 7th February.

Mr. Wall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the rights of the Turkish minority to its share in the Civil Service and to its own municipal councils is laid down in the Constitution, which cannot be altered except with the consent of the guaranteeing powers? Is it not far better to tackle this question on the basis of good will rather than of making threats to have the Constitution changed?

Mr. Braine: I agree with the latter sentiment. Article 182 of the Constitution provides that certain basic articles cannot in any way be amended and that amendments to other articles require two-thirds majorities of each of the two communities—Greek and Turkish. The Constitution, of course, forms an essential part of the Cyprus settlement.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in practice, a number of the provisions of the Constitution have proved themselves unworkable? Will he assure the House that the British Government, as one of the guaranteeing Powers, look sympathetically at changes which have become necessary in order to make democratic government work in Cyprus?

Mr. Braine: Cyprus is an independent member State of the Commonwealth. In any case, there has been no request from the Cyprus Government for a revision of the Constitution.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Constitution

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultations he has had with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland concerning constitutional proposals in Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Braine: During the past year, in accordance with established practice, there have been consultations with the Federal Government prior to announcements of constitutional proposals by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Healey: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for giving us knowledge which was already in our possession—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why ask, then?"]—and which is totally irrelevant to the purpose and meaning of my Question, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that all hon. Members on this side of the House regard it as vitally important that Her Majesty's Government should not be deflected from proposals which would give the Africans majority rule in Northern Rhodesia by any representations made by Sir Roy Welensky, and that any further steps taken to appease Sir Roy Welensky in this way could lead only to a situation in Northern Rhodesia very like that obtaining in Algeria?

Mr. Braine: I am perfectly sure that the Federal Government would be the first to recognise that responsibility for a final decision on Northern Rhodesia rests with the British Government, but there is an obligation to consult which was laid down in the White Paper of January, 1953, and there is no point in consulting unless one seriously considers the views of the man with whom one is consulting.

Mr. Healey: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Federal Government's views on this matter must have been influenced by the fact that Her Majesty's Government appeased the Government in the middle of last year and allowed themselves to be shaken in the view which they took in January, 1961? In view of that, can the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that this time at least Her Majesty's Government will


do what they know and believe to be right?

Mr. Braine: I do not for a moment accept the premise upon which the hon. Member bases his Question.

Disturbances (Report)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the state of public order in Northern Rhodesia; and what arrangements have been made to make available to Parliament and the public the Northern Rhodesia Government's Report on the disturbances in the Protectorate between July and October last.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 1st February.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not the case that this Report came to the conclusion that "No other organisation or society",—I am quoting the exact words—than the United National Independence Party was responsible for these disturbances which involved cruel and brutal attacks on peace-loving individuals and grave damage to churches and clinics and other properties of benefit to the African population?

Mr. Maudling: I have placed copies of this Report in the Library so that hon. Members who are interested can read them and draw deductions from them, For my own part, I think that it is an excellent and impartial Report.

Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are in a position physically to exercise their responsibility for law and order in Northern Rhodesia during the difficult weeks and months that may follow without relying on assistance from the Federal Government, the attitude of whose troops may not be entirely impartial in this matter?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's implication about the Federal troops or about the possible developments in Northern Rhodesia. It is my hope that we shall get a solution to the Northern Rhodesian constitutional problem which will prevent these dangers arising.

Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government are in a position, in case of need, to provide troops in order to carry out their responsibilities in this territory?

Mr. Maudling: That is a hypothetical question, and to answer it would not help anyone.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Is it in accordance with the traditions of this House to cast reflections without justification on officers holding the Queen's Commission?

Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that Mr. Justice Devlin's Report made exactly the comment which I have myself repeated?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that any point of order arises either way.

Lusaka Municipal Council (Africans)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans are at present members of the Lusaka Municipal Council; how many Africans are on the voters' rolls; and what plans he has for a respresentative system of election.

Mr. Maudling: There is no direct African representation on the council at present. The voters roll does not specify race, but the number of Africans on it cannot be large. The Northern Rhodesia Government are committed in principle to broader electoral arrangements and to direct African participation in the council; and it is hoped that legislation for that purpose will be introduced at the next session of the Legislature.

Mr. Thomson: I thank the Secretary of State for that Answer. Will he do everything he can to expedite this matter? Does he not agree that the political progress made at the national level in Northern Rhodesia ought to be matched by the advance of Africans at the local level?

Mr. Maudling: I think that we can expect legislation on this subject in the next session of the Legislature, which, I understand, will be next month.

United National Independence Party

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Northern Division of the United National Independence Party of Northern Rhodesia has been refused the right to re-register its divisional headquarters.

Mr. Maudling: The Registrar of Societies refused to register this divisional branch of U.N.I.P. as a society because on the application as submitted to him he considered it likely to be prejudicial to peace and good order. A second application is now under consideration.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has told the House that the ban has been lifted on this organisation but repeated evidence keeps coining to me of administrative interference with the political decision that he has taken? This is not the first case of refusal to reregister which I have brought to the attention of his Department. Is it not clear that the people on the spot are not carrying out his policy in the spirit in which he intended?

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. The Registrar has a clear duty in this matter. He took a decision which was confirmed by the Chief Secretary, and the applicants can appeal to the Governor if they wish to do so. The chance to appeal is still open. In the meanwhile, they made a second application which is being considered in the normal way.

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the impartial report to which my right hon. Friend referred puts the blame for these disturbances wholly on the political party concerned with this question and, therefore, is it not wise to have a certain amount of circumspection before considering reregistration of the society?

Mr. Maudling: I think that we can safely leave these applications to the Registrar and to the appeal machinery to which I have referred. I do not want to interfere with the discussions of the people on the spot.

Constitution

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the proposed constitution for Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: As the Secretary of State is primarily responsible to the House for his policy in Northern Rhodesia, and in view of the difference of opinion between him and some of his colleagues about the policy there, is it not time that the House was consulted about what the Government are discussing and proposing, and ought not the House to discuss it first rather than refer it to other people outside?

Mr. Maudling: It is my intention to make an announcement as soon as possible. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made clear earlier, we are obliged to consult the Federal Government before reaching a final conclusion on these matters, and consultation must mean real consultation.

Mr. Kenneth Kaunda

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what current action he is taking regarding the threats made by Mr. Kenneth Kaunda that if his United National Independence Party is dissatisfied with Her Majesty's Government's constitutional proposals for Northern Rhodesia, he will paralyse that territory's copper-mining industry by illegal strike action.

Mr. Maudling: I am satisfied that the Governor will take whatever action is necessary to deal with any breach of the law and to maintain order.

Mr. Goodhew: Is not my right hon. Friend seriously perturbed at the possibility that these threats will result in outbreaks of violence such as occurred last year, and in framing the new constitutional proposals for Northern Rhodesia, will he see to it that the impression is not given that Her Majesty's Government will always give way to threats, intimidation and violence by a minority against the interests of the African majority?

Mr. Maudling: I am disturbed by the potential dangers of the situation in Northern Rhodesia, and that is why I look forward to making an announcement as soon as possible. I am equally determined before making an announcement to consider every possible implication of it.

Mr. Healey: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that after the Government's proposals last January the Northern Rhodesian Branch of the United Federal Party made similar threats?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that much is to be gained in present circumstances by raking over the embers of old disputes?

Technical Education

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken in Northern Rhodesia on the recommendations of the Keir Report on Technical and Commercial Training, particularly to provide an expansion of technical education for Africans; and what resources his department will contribute towards improving educational facilities.

Mr. Maudling: I am asking the Governor for a further report and will communicate with the hon. Member when I receive it. Responsibility for assistance towards technical education now rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation who, I understand, has recently agreed in principle to the making of a colonial development and welfare grant towards the completion of the College for Further Education in Lusaka.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN COUNTRIES

Information Services

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps he is taking to improve the quality and quantity of material for use by British information officers in the African countries of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Braine: Both the quality and quantity of the material we supply is kept under close and constant review in consultation with our overseas representatives.

Mr. Healey: While recognising the energy and devotion of our Common-wealth information officers in this respect, will the Under-Secretary press the Treasury to allow more money for this vitally important work? On the ques-

tion of quality, does he not agree that it is not satisfactory that Commonwealth propaganda, information material, in West Africa should be omni-direction material also available to Canada and Australia, and will he consider setting up a special African department to deal with that side of the problem?

Mr. Braine: I agree entirely with what the hon. Member has said about the devotion and ability of our information officers in the field, and I take his point about the necessity for specially tailored material to meet the needs of these countries. But I am sure that the hon. Member would be the first to recognise that if information expenditure is to be kept within bounds, a large proportion of the material sent out should be suitable for use anywhere in the Commonwealth. On the other hand, we are moving increasingly in the direction he has suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Dockyard

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what agreement has been reached with Messrs. Baileys (Malta) Ltd. about the conversion of Malta Dockyard to civilian use; when the major contracts were placed; and when the work is expected to be completed.

Mr. Maudling: My predecessor informed my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) on the 18th May last of the agreement reached between Her Majesty's Government and Messrs. Bailey (Malta) Ltd., on the financing of the revised and enlarged development plan for the Dockyard. I am glad to say that the main contract for the conversion of the Dockyard has now been placed and work should begin very soon. I hope that it will be completed in about two years.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House and the Maltese people will be delighted that this overdue agreement has now been signed? Can he assure the House that the level of employment in the Dockyard will now be able to be maintained and that ship-repairing work will be continued during the period of conversion?

Mr. Maudling: I would like notice of any question in which I am asked to give assurances about particular levels of employment or work.

Mr. Driberg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the observation just made by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that when public money is disbursed proper accounting methods must be followed? In view of the record of this particular firm, will that be done in future?

Mr. Maudling: I accept my hon. Friend's principle and reject the hon. Member's supplementary question.

Socialist International Delegation (Shooting Incident)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if an inquiry has been held into the shooting incident in Malta involving members of the Socialist International who were making an official visit to the island a few weeks ago; and if he will make the result of that inquiry available to Members of this House.

Mr. Maudling: Police investigation and an inquiry by a magistrate continue. The findings of the latter will be made available in due course.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that although this incident was not serious physically, it could have political repercussions? If members of an international delegation visit the country and are subject to incidents of this character, it could become serious and stop people travelling from one country to another. Will the Minister deal with this matter and try to find the cause of the trouble?

Mr. Maudling: The matter is in the hands of the police, who are investigating the position, and I am sure that I should not comment at this stage.

Mr. Driberg: Can it really take them three months to investigate a simple incident of this kind?

Mr. Maudling: It depends on the complexity of the facts.

General Election

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the importance of the forthcoming

general election in Malta, he will arrange for a group of independent observers from all parties in this House to visit the island during the period of the election to note the methods and procedure and to make a report to him as the Minister responsible for the conduct of elections.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the atmosphere in Malta has become explosive during the last few weeks? As the election is to take place on Monday week, will he do something now and not wait until the election is over and trouble has broken out? Will he send someone there to report to him if trouble arises in connection with the election?

Mr. Maudling: I am concerned about the election position in Malta, but I discussed this with the Governor, who has taken great precautions, and I think all possible precautions, to ensure peaceful and impartial elections. For my part, I do not think that a visit from a group of independent observers would help. In fact, it might give rise to incidents which otherwise would not occur.

Mr. Healey: Is the Minister aware that members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Malta are threatening Maltese citizens with utter damnation if they vote for the Labour Party? [Laughter.] I can understand hon. Gentlemen in this House regarding that as a comic remark, but I assure them that in Malta this is a matter of the gravest personal concern to any member of the Roman Catholic Church. In the circumstances, is the Minister satisfied that there is freedom in these elections?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir, I am, and I have given great thought to this. It is extremely important, and I think that every possible precaution has been taken to ensure fair and impartial elections.

Miss Lee: Is the Minister aware that it would be simple for him to send out several distinguished Catholic Members of the British Labour Party who could reassure the Maltese voters that they could vote Labour without incurring damnation?

Mr. Maudling: It may be simple to do, but I doubt whether it would help with the elections.

Mr. Wall: Is the Minister aware that the Roman Catholic hierarchy has taken action because of attacks by the Malta Labour Party on the Catholic way of life and Catholic spiritual beliefs?

Mr. Maudling: One deprecates the way in which the election is involving religious issues, and I think that the sooner the election is over and settled the better. I believe that the Governor has taken every possible precaution to ensure that it is fairly conducted.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA

Constitution

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the constitutional conference on the future of British Guiana will be held; and what will be its terms of reference.

Mr. Maudling: The conference will be held in May. It will discuss the date and the arrangements to be made for the achievement of independence by British Guiana.

Mr. Brockway: I welcome that announcement. Is it the Government's intention to respond to the demand of the British Guiana Government that independence should be granted by the end of this year? In view of the situation in Jamaica and Trinidad, is it not very desirable that these three territories should be advancing together towards independence?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that I can make any comment on the date of independence of British Guiana because that is one of the things which we must discuss at the conference; and to suggest any date or point of view in advance of the discussions at the conference would be unwise and might prejudice the discussions.

Mr. Gardner: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fears, both inside and outside British Guiana, that unless there are proper constitutional safeguards built into the new constitution that country might well become a base in South America for the propagation of Communism? Will he pay strict regard to those fears when the question of a new constitution for British Guiana comes up for discussion?

Mr. Maudling: I think that there will be varying views in British Guiana itself about the nature of the independence constitution, and possibly even about the date for independence. Once again, as in answer to the previous supplementary question, while taking the point. I will ask my hon. and learned Friend not to expect me to anticipate the conference.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the right hon. Gentleman take a better view of the prospect for British Guiana than that taken by the hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner)? Now that the West Indian Federation has unfortunately come to an end, will the Colonial Secretary at least attempt to rescue out of that the benefit that more flexible arrangements are possible over a wider Caribbean area, and will he encourage the Government of British Guiana to associate itself with the common services arrangements which he is planning for the Caribbean area?

Mr. Maudling: I should be glad to see participation by British Guiana in economic and other arrangements in the Caribbean, but I doubt whether that could be put on the agenda for a constitutional conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Hydro-electric Scheme, Nkula Falls

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Nyasaland Government will cooperate with the Federal Government's hydro-electric scheme at Nkula Falls; and what benefits the scheme is expected to bring in Nyasaland.

Mr. Maudling: Discussions have been taking place between the Federal and Nyasaland Governments and final decisions on the project have yet to be reached. Apart from the increased power supply for development schemes that the hydro-electric station would provide, the barrage upstream would regulate the level of Lake Nyasa with benefit to navigation, tourism and lakeshore dwellers. It would also facilitate irrigation projects and assist riverside dwellers in the Shire Valley.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware


that Dr. Banda, the Minister of Local Government and Natural Resources, has said that he would rather the Nyasaland people starved to death than had the benefit of Federal funds for the purpose of constructing this dam?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that I am called upon to comment on statements of that character by individuals. I very much regret that there should be a dispute about this very valuable project. As I said, discussions are going on between the Federal Government and the Nyasaland Government and I hope that they will produce results.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRISTAN DA CUNHA

Scientific Expedition

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the scientific expedition organised by the Royal Society which is visiting Tristan da Cunha; when he will send an expedition to find out the conditions on this island; and whether it will be possible for those who lived on it, and who may wish to go back, to return.

Mr. Maudling: An expedition organised by the Royal Society to study the scientific causes underlying the eruption and its effects on the fauna and flora of Tristan was landed on Tristan on 29th and 30th January by the South African frigate "Transvaal". The expedition expect to return towards the end of March and I shall of course study their report. Meanwhile I have no plans for any other expedition. I doubt whether the island will ever be safe for permanent resettlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERMUDA

Ferry Point Bridge

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is expected that work will commence on the reconstruction of Ferry Point Bridge, Bermuda.

Mr. Maudling: Responsibility for providing funds for the construction of this bridge rests with the United States Government, but that Government have to date been unable to get Congress to vote the money. Her Majesty's Government

continue to press that this long standing obligation should be fulfilled.

Mr. Bennett: With no reflection on the Minister, this is not really good enough. It is over 15 years since the American Government entered into a solemn pledge to build a bridge to replace land highways that they had taken over as part of the Base Agreement. Since then, year after year, they have renewed that pledge but have always escaped the ultimate obligation by claiming that they could not get the consent of Congress. Is he aware that it is now five years since one of his predecessors, in answer to a similar Question, said that work was expected to begin in 1947, and when does he think that this promise will be kept? Is not this a bad example of a great Power failing a small country?

Mr. Maudling: I think that it is very disappointing that progress has not been made on this. When the United States Government say that they cannot get approval from Congress towards certain expenditure, one cannot help feeling a certain sympathy with them.

Mr. Bennett: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Kenya African National Union

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many licences have been applied for by the elected representatives of the Kenya African National Union in the Kenya Legislative Council and their President, Mr. Kenyatta, to hold meetings in the Northern Province and the following districts of Kenya, namely: Baringo District, Elgeyo-Marakwet, Nandi, West Suk, Kericho, Laikipia, Samburu, Kilifi, Kwale, Tana-Lamu, Katiado, Narok, Uasingisho, Trans-Nzoia, and Elgon Nyanza; and how many such licences have been refused, and on what grounds.

Mr. Maudling: Nine licences have been applied for by the President and other elected representatives of K.A.N.U. to hold public meetings in the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend, of which


one was refused on grounds of public order.

Mr. Bennett: Taking into account the Minister's Answer, does he realise that this amounts to the fact that a party which purports to be a national one does not dare politically to enter into about two-thirds of the country as a whole? Does he realise that a parallel in this country would be if Members of the Opposition Front Bench dared not go to political meetings anywhere except in London and the Midlands?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Teachers

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Education how many teachers' training colleges do not require mathematics at O level as an entry qualification.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): A General Certificate of Education pass in mathematics is not normally required for entry to training, but four-fifths of the men and over half the women admitted to three-year courses possessed one in 1960.

Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient emphasis is placed on mathematics as a basis for modern education?

Sir D. Eccles: We are short of mathematics teachers, but I assure my hon. Friend that the training colleges are now doing some excellent work to increase the numbers.

Roman Catholic School, Hammersmith

Mr. Tomney: asked the Minister of Education why permission has been refused for the use of vacant class rooms at the Roman Catholic Primary School, Our Lady of Victory, for the education of Roman Catholic children from Hammersmith.

Sir D. Eccles: This school has no accommodation of its own, and could only expand if the local education authority provided it with additional rooms under Section 109 of the Education Act, 1944. The local education authority has discussed the suggestion with representatives of the Roman Catholic diocese

concerned, but in view of various objections both parties have agreed not to proceed with it.

Mr. Tomney: Is not the Minister aware that the problem of Catholic education in Catholic schools in Hammersmith and West London is daily growing more acute, in part due to immigration, and that the provision of these class rooms would alleviate the problem to some extent? I understand that at one time permission was given for their use and later withdrawn. This is difficult to understand, as the Catholic authorities were prepared to pay the cost of providing transport for these children from Hammersmith to this school.

Sir D. Eccles: As the Roman Catholic authorities concerned have agreed with this, I think that we had better leave it there, but the hon. Gentleman is right that the problem of sites for Catholic schools in North Hammersmith is very difficult.

Direct Grant Schools

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Education what grants are at present available for experimental work on special projects under the Direct Grant Schools Regulations.

Sir D. Eccles: Regulation 4 (d) of the Direct Grant Schools Regulations, 1959, empowers me to pay grant in respect of special or experimental work involving extraordinary expenditure. The grants regularly paid under this Regulation are towards the cost of the employment of foreign assistants. I have also recently agreed to pay a small grant to one school taking part in a pilot scheme in the teaching of atomic physics at Ordinary level.

Mrs. White: As there are 179 direct grant schools in special relationship with the Ministry and in a privileged position, does not he think that he might be a little more enterprising in this matter? Does not he recognise that there are a number of problems in education in respect of which he might take an initiative and ask some of these rather privileged schools to help to solve them?

Sir D. Eccles: I am taking steps to increase research, but I do not think that


the direct grant schools are in any better position than any other schools to help us there.

Ashmore Park Estate, Wednesfield

Miss Lee: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the unsettling effect of the frequent change of school accommodation experienced by many of the younger children of Ashmore Park Estate, Wednesfield, Staffordshire; and, in view of the fact that this is an overspill area where the child population is growing rapidly, why provision has not been made for adequate up-to-date school accommodation.

Sir D. Eccles: I am aware of the needs of Ashmore Park, and have approved new primary schools to provide 1,120 additional places. The building of two of the new schools is still delayed by difficulties of site acquisition. Meanwhile, one new school on the estate has opened and the authority has provided temporary classrooms at existing schools. It also provides free transport for children who have to attend schools off the estate.

Miss Lee: Is the Minister aware that his free transport has had to be used to take children as young as seven years of age to three different schools, and that he has not answered my Question? I have asked him why he has failed to provide accommodation. Is he aware that he has had ten years to do this? He knows that this is an overspill new housing estate, with a lot of young children. Is he not ashamed of the priorities of the last ten years, under which money and materials have been spent on issues very much less necessary, and when he is still telling me what he is going to do and not what he has done?

Sir D. Eccles: This is an unfortunate case, because the sites could not be acquired voluntarily and the compulsory purchase order is, unfortunately, now subject to an action in the High Court, and, therefore, sub judice. I hope that it will not be too long before the sites can be acquired.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of concern about the inadequate building allocations of the Staffordshire County

Council? In view of this concern, will he agree to receive a deputation to discuss the matter with him?

Sir D. Eccles: That is another question. I cannot see every local education authority on the subject of its building allocations. As the hon. Member knows, it is the practice not to do so.

Steel Framed School Building

Mr. Proudfoot: asked the Minister of Education what are the comparative costs of a steel frame school building of up-to-date design and a reinforced concrete building.

Sir D. Eccles: It is difficult to generalise on this subject, but an analysis of the tenders accepted in 1961 for schools in the major building programme shows that the difference in the average cost per place between steel framed buildings and buildings in reinforced concrete was not significant.

Mr. Proudfoot: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will he bring to the notice of the local education authorities that steel can now be bought off the shelf?

Sir D. Eccles: I know that in the area which my hon. Friend represents there is steel to be bought, and I have asked the local authority to look at the problem of the Constantine College.

Mr. Willey: Has the Minister taken any action on the Estimates Committee Report on school buildings?

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir—not on the Report. It is rather a satisfactory Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE UNIT)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate the activities of the Ministers of Health, Labour and Works with a view to establishing an occupational health service unit in the Palace of Westminster.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Occupational health service units are normally provided in factories under the Factory Acts so that


people who are subject to industrial injury or industrial disease can be treated on the spot. I do not think that any analogy between this House and a factory ought to be carried too far.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Prime Minister aware that many hon. Members, Press men and the staff owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) who acts as an unpaid general practitioner in this House? Is he further aware that although there are over 2,400 people in this establishment every day, including more than 500 people in the manual grades, we do not even employ a State registered nurse for first-aid purposes? Is he further aware that many establishments with far fewer people have a far better occupational health service than we have, and should not we set a good example to industry and commerce, especially as we suffer from the modern illnesses of nervous strain and emotional exhaustion?

The Prime Minister: I can see the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and if it were thought desirable I am sure that consultations could be held with the Leader of the House.

Mr. K. Lewis: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that we on this side of the House have for a long time believed that the Opposition's morale has sunk rather low, but we are rather surprised that they should now express a preference for making baskets?

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister if he will advise a general election before agreeing to Great Britain's entry into the Common Market.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to what I said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) following my statement on 31st July last year.

Mr. Stonehouse: Would not the Prime Minister agree that it would be quite unprecedented and wholly against the spirit of our Constitution for a Member of Parliament to be whipped into voting for the undermining of our fundamental

institutions and their merging with Europe, particularly bearing in mind that Conservative candidates, including the Prime Minister's right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, at the last election were telling the electorate that it would be impossible for Britain to agree to the Rome Treaty for these very reasons? Is not the electorate entitled to be consulted about this?

The Prime Minister: When the negotiations are brought to a conclusion, it will then be the duty of the Government to recommend to the House what course we should pursue. I do not think that it is necessary to anticipate it now.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the Prime Minister reply to the Question, and also to my question of 31st July, 1961, and not merely repeat that he will bring the matter before Parliament? What he is being asked is whether he will consult the electorate? Apart from the economic aspects, surely the political implications involved in joining the European Economic Community justify asking the electors whether they are prepared to accept this constitutional change?

The Prime Minister: All these are matters for consideration, but I think that the first thing to do is to see how the negotiations proceed and in what form they are concluded.

Mr. Rankin: Surely the Prime Minister will agree that before he takes this step he ought to consult the country? Is he hedging on that question?

The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to answer a hypothetical question.

Sir C. Osborne: As the Opposition are so bitterly divided on the question of the European Economic Community, is not the suggestion quite impracticable?

The Prime Minister: I think that we may as well see how the negotiations go on.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT AND NUCLEAR TESTS

Mrs. Butler: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he will make in his forthcoming discussions with President Kennedy on action for progress in banning nuclear tests.

Mr. Morris: asked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government have consented to the use of Christmas Island for United States nuclear tests.

Mr. Mason: asked the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government now have for another series of nuclear tests; to what extent agreement has been reached to allow the United States of America to use British testing areas such as Christmas Island; whether consideration is being given to joint testing of nuclear weapons by the United States of America and the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the light of discussions with President Kennedy, he will now state the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to atmospheric nuclear tests in co-operation with the United States Government.

The Prime Minister: I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the other hon. Members to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Prime Minister aware that people are tired of the nuclear Powers behaving like silly schoolboys, with their attitude of "You have tested your bombs and therefore we must test ours" when the only parity possible in a nuclear arms race is the parity of death? Will not he even now see that a lead is given by this country for an uncontrolled test ban, by making personal visits to Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Kennedy and asking them to support such a ban before other countries join in this tragic race?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate the hon. Lady's feelings, but I still think that it would be more convenient to deal with this matter as a whole when I make my statement.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in view of the fact that he has already handed over this country to America, nobody should be surprised if he gives them a present of Christmas Island, too?

Oral Answers to Questions — BERLIN

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his correspondence in the last two months with Mr. Khrushchev about Berlin.

The Prime Minister: Any correspondence I might have with other Heads of Government would be confidential.

Mr. Allaun: I appreciate the need for privacy, but cannot the Prime Minister write to Mr. Khrushchev, referring to the recent mutual withdrawal of tanks from Checkpoint Charlie as a hopeful sign and the creation of a hopeful mood, and as a symbol of bigger things, such as guaranteeing West Berlin's security and also vetoing nuclear weapons for West and East Germany?

The Prime Minister: All these are large issues. So far as Berlin is concerned, they are being dealt with at present by the United States Ambassador in Moscow. He has had three meetings with Mr. Gromyko and is trying to establish whether a basis can be found for a fruitful negotiation.

Mr. Shinwell: If the Prime Minister cannot disclose conversations which he regards as confidential, will he at least inform the House whether he has been in correspondence with Mr. Khrushchev?

The Prime Minister: If I were to answer that question it would take away a great deal from the value of any correspondence that there might have been.

Mr. Jeger: Does not the Prime Minister realise that he may be arousing suspicions by conducting secret correspondence with Communists? Does he not agree that, in general, it would be a good thing if all correspondence, contacts and business arrangements with all Communists were made known to this House?

The Prime Minister: If I were to have any correspondence, it would be confidential.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Whaling

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent his Department was consulted before the transfer to Japan of four-ninths of the British whale quota, to take effect after the 1961–62 whaling season; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of this new situation.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): The need to transfer part of the United Kingdom quota for pelagic whaling arises from the agreement by a British firm to sell an expedition to a Japanese company at the end of the present season in the Antarctic. My right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland were consulted as regards both the sale and the proportion of quota to be transferred. The sale of this expedition will not change our policy, which remains to seek inter-international agreement on effective action to conserve whale stocks, with due regard to the interests of our own industry.

Lavender

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to preserve and develop the production of lavender in this country; and what help his Department gives when a lavender grower wishes to obtain planning permission for buildings in connection with such production.

Mr. Vane: The production of lavender in this country is protected by import duties on fresh and dried lavender. The Ministry's advisory officers are available to give technical advice to lavender growers. Planning applications are for the local planning authority, and, on appeal, for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, to consider on their merits. Where the planning authority proposes to reject an application for agricultural development or to approve it subject to conditions, it is required to consult the Ministry's Land Commissioners, whose instructions are, in accordance with Ministry of Housing Circular 43/58, that they should support such applications when the development is, in their judgment, necessary in the long term for the efficient farming of the land.

Sir B. Janner: In view of the very encouraging statement made by the Minister, will he go a step further and say that he will take practical steps to implement the inference to be drawn from his statement, and see that a business which has been in existence in Hertforshire for 140 years shall not be put out of existence because no planning per-

mission has been given for a building to be erected on the 5-acre farm of a well-known lavender developer?

Mr. Vane: I think I know the case which the hon. Member has in mind. I can assure him that it is still the subject of inquiry.

Mr. Mawby: Does my tight hon. Friend agree that it might have been better, or more fruitful, if the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) had worn lavender in his buttonhole this afternoon?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Brixton Prison (Special Wing)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners, in all, have now been accommodated in the special wing at Brixton Prison; how many of them have been returned to ordinary prisons; how many have been transferred to mental institutions; how many have been released on the completion of their sentences; and if he will publish in HANSARD a summary assessment of the results of this experiment.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): Of the nine prisoners who have passed through the special wing at Brixton four have been transferred to mental hospitals under the Mental Health Act, 1959, two improved enough to be given a chance in a training prison where they are making reasonable progress, two have been transferred to ordinary prisons and the ninth has been sent to Wormwood Scrubs to receive treatment for an old physical injury.

Mr. Driberg: On the whole, can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether this experiment is regarded as successful?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: On the whole, with certain reservations, yes, a success.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman going to continue this experiment, which, as he knows, has caused a certain amount of upheaval and dissatisfaction among prison warders?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give notice of that rather different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. HALE: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) whether, in view of the dissatisfaction with recent appointments of magistrates for the County Borough of Oldham, he will reconsider the membership of the advisory committee on magistrates with a view to the appointment of a more representative committee;
(2) what steps are taken in the County Palatine of Lancaster to ensure that the appointment of magistrates is reasonably representative of the various classes of the community and of their political and ethical views.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I will, with permission, answer Questions Nos. 45 and 46 together.
I regard the making of judicial appointments as one of my most important duties as Chancellor of the Duchy. In this task I am guided by the Report of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace, 1946–48, to which I adhere as closely as possible.
As the hon. Member will understand, much of this work must take place in a confidential atmosphere, but I am always ready to consider representations received from any source.
I shall be glad to discuss the matter with the hon. Member and with the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp).

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware with what joy we see him emerging from the secret chrysalis to the vocal butterfly, that there is in this Question implied no criticism of persons, but a desire to discuss the question of working-class representation on the bench, and that I and my colleagues welcome his invitation and would like to thank him for it, and hope that it will be a happy and a productive meeting?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 12TH FEBRUARY—Supply
[6th Allotted Day]: Committee stage of the Civil Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.

Consideration of the Motion to approve the Purchase Tax (No. 4) Order, 1961.

TUESDAY, 13TH FEBRUARY—Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill.

Report stage of the Health and Agriculture Supplementary Estimate.

WEDNESDAY, 14TH FEBRUARY—A debate will take place on the Opposition Motion on the Growth of Private Monopolies.

Consideration of the Motions on the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure).

THURSDAY, 15TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which it is proposed to take formally to allow for a debate on an Opposition Motion on Shipping and Shipbuilding.

FRIDAY, 16TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of private Members' Motions.

MONDAY, 19TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be: Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

A debate will take place on a subject to be announced later.

Consideration of the Motion to approve the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malta) Order.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can say when the debate on the proposed change in London government is likely to take place; whether he can yet say whether it will be a two-day debate and whether he will say that the Motion, which, I think, has now been put down officially by the Government, to take note of the proposals in the White Paper, indicates that the Government have not yet decided their attitude on this matter,


that they are not committed on the question of principle, but merely wish at this stage to take the views of the House as a whole?

Mr. Macleod: I hope that there will be a two-day debate and, in the event, I think that it will take place in the week after next.
My right hon. Friend made a statement on 29th November and announced the general acceptance of the views of the Royal Commission, that is, that the borough should be the main unit. But a vast number of matters, including the size and make-up of boroughs, the size of the central education authority and its area and how that authority should be chosen, are open, and we shall be very glad to hear the views of the House upon them.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he proposes to have a debate on Kenya?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I answered that question last week. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary and we do not think it advisable to suggest that there should be a debate in advance of the Kenya Conference, which opens next week.

Dame Irene Ward: As it is such a long time since we have had a debate on ships and shipbuilding, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Consolidated Fund Bill, which is now being taken formally, is exempted business? Can my right hon. Friend arrange—so that every hon. Member knows about it—for the period of debate to be extended, at any rate until eleven o'clock, because there are many hon. Members who would desire to take part in this very important debate?

Mr. Macleod: The arrangements this year are rather exceptional and I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for making this possible. The position is that there is an extra Consolidated Fund Bill this year, made necessary because of the Supplementary Estimates for health and agriculture. A debate on the Bill itself would be very narrow and restricted to those subjects. Such a debate would be exempted business. It will be for the

advantage of the House if we follow this procedure, that is, to take the Second Reading formally, and then have a discussion on shipping and shipbuilding on an Opposition Motion which would follow the ordinary course of debate for the day.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements for us to have an extra hour, which was what I asked in my first question?

Mr. Macleod: I should consider any representations made on that point, if it be the general wish of the House.

Mr. M. Stewart: Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the debate on London government, may I ask whether the Leader of the House will make clear, setting aside matters like boundaries of boroughs and details, whether it is the resolve of the Government—whatever may be said in the debate—to legislate in accordance with the main principles of the White Paper? Or is it envisaged that the Government might change their view on those principles in the light of arguments which might be advanced in the debate?

Mr. Macleod: On a considerable number of matters, we shall, as I have said, take the view of the House. That will affect the attitude of the Government towards legislation. But, as the hon. Member knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made the attitude of the Government clear on the 29th November in a statement to the House. Naturally, during questions on business I should not wish to embroider on that.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has now been able to consider—as he promised to do last week—the appeals made to him to provide facilities for the Racial Discrimination and Incitement Bill, and whether he would be prepared to receive an all-party deputation of hon. Members on this subject?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. I have considered this very carefully indeed and have consulted my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I believe that the view which I expressed last week on this


matter is the right one, and after careful consideration I think that I should adhere to it, that is to say, that I do not think, however admirable—as I am sure they are—may be the desires of the hon. Member, or the motives behind the Bill, that they could effectively be carried out by legislation. I am, of course, ready to receive a deputation from all parties on the subject.

Mr. David James: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has seen the Motion on the Order Paper in the names of myself and about 130 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House? In vew of the interest in this subject and in the hope that one day there will be legislation on the Roberts Report, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend can hold out any hope of a debate on the matter?
[That this House, mindful that the export of British ideas and British books depends on a live home market, and that eleven books are borrowed from public libraries for every one purchased, urges Her Majesty's Government to look sympathetically at the resultant effect on authors and publishers.]

Mr. Macleod: I saw this Motion with considerable interest and even, for a moment, contemplated signing it. However, I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education and he is not convinced of the case which my hon. Friend puts forward in his Motion. I can only suggest that the Motion would provide a suitable opportunity for the use of private Members' time, if my hon. Friend is successful in the Ballot.

Mrs. White: Reverting to the question of the Bill on racial discrimination, may I ask whether the Government have studied this matter and looked at what has been done by legislation in New York City and Massachusetts? Is not the Leader of the House being completely irresponsible in suggesting that this matter cannot be dealt with by legislation when it has been tackled with great success in Boston and New York City?

Mr. Macleod: There are many precedents, many by no means successful, but the position is that the law of this country does not recognise racial discrimination. That is a very serious step to

contemplate before legislating in the sense of the hon. Member's Bill. I will gladly discuss this with hon. Members, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) knows that the provisions of this Bill, in one way or another, have been before the House for a very long time. I can assure her that the matter has been most carefully considered by the Home Secretary and by the Government.

Mr. Rankin: Has the Leader of the House yet found time for a debate on the Toothill Report?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. There is no news on Toothill.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Sir J. Pitman: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that in last Monday's debate it was made quite clear that on both sides of the House there is a great deal to be contributed on what might be done in regard to the United Nations? Would the Government consider the Motion, signed by a large number of hon. Members, asking the Government to consider what they might do to carry out improvements to the United Nations?
[That this House, noting the numerous areas of likely conflict in the world and the need to prevent them exacerbating the main ideological conflict, and noting the effort made by the United Nations in Sinai and Congo, believes that such efforts would be more effective, were they to be within a framework of law enforcement known in advance, and to this end urges that Her Majesty's Government should propose at the United Nations that an autonomous commission should be set up to explore and report on the creation of a permanent force with an individually recruited personnel owing allegiance direct to the United Nations and paid by it, and whose prime purpose would be the enforcement, in areas where it was directed to operate, of laws preventing the ownership, use or manufacture of arms, or the incitement to such, except by consent of the United Nations and in fulfilment of the United Nations' force's task of preventing violation of frontiers; and that Her Majesty's Government should announce in advance that if


acceptable proposals were to result, it would give its support and supply bases and personnel.]
It was made evident on Monday that there is this desire on both sides of the House.

Mr. Macleod: I shall certainly draw that specially to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but, clearly, it is not concerned with next week's business.

Mr. S. Silverman: The Leader of the House said that it was proposed to take the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill formally. Will he tell us who has made that proposal and who has agreed to it and whether hon. Members are to have their rights curtailed in this way without their consent? Or does he agree that their rights are not in any way curtailed by any such proposition?
Many of us consider that the fact that the Consolidated Fund Bill is exempted business affords private Members one of their few opportunities of raising matters of their own choice. Does he agree that if he does not put it in this way the desire of hon. Members to make some other matter the subject of the main debate is in no way prejudiced, whereas if he does put it in this way the time is cut short and withdrawn from private Members?

Mr. Macleod: On an ordinary Consolidated Fund Bill that is perfectly true and I dare say that as a matter of doctrine it is perfectly true also on this Bill. In the usual spring and summer Consolidated Fund Bill debates hon. Members have an opportunity—as is traditional—of raising grievances before Supply is granted, but this is a special and extra Consolidated Fund Bill which is made necessary for the one purpose of these Supplementary Estimates. Therefore, it seemed, after discussion through the usual channels, that it formed a suitable opportunity for discussion, not of the narrow subjects we would have if we stuck to the Consolidated Fund Bill alone, but of wider subjects which the House may wish to debate.

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman talks about consultation with the usual channels. I am not inviting him to enter into private arrangements,

or even private disputes, but he, as Leader of the House, must know that there are hon. Members who are not represented in the discussions which take place in what he calls the usual channels. We are just as much entitled to have our rights consulted as any other hon. Members.

Mr. Macleod: I do not dispute that for a moment. I am very ready to receive representations from unusual channels, as well.

Mr. Pym: Could my right hon. Friend say when and if he intends to put down a Motion on House of Lords reform?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, I propose to table such a Motion today.

Mr. Mellish: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that next Thursday we shall hear about the desperate plight of shipyards of Northern Ireland, but that this is a most unsatisfactory way of discussing the economic problems of that part of the United Kingdom? It is about time that we stopped the nonsense of having to pester the Leader of the House every week on a subject which concerns a very important part of the United Kingdom. Will he take us all seriously and tell us when we can debate thus question properly?

Mr. Macleod: The very important part of the problems of Northern Ireland will be very relevant in the debate we may have next week. For the moment I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. McMaster: May I add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) said? Will my right hon. Friend consider favourably her request to extend the time of the debate on shipping and shipbuilding because of the considerable amount of redundancy at Messrs. Harland and Woolf and in other shipyards and the desire of many hon. Members on both sides of the House to take part in that debate?

Mr. Macleod: I have certainly noted that, but I never think that an extension of one hour—except in most unusual circumstances—really meets the convenience of the House. If such a general wish is expressed, we can discuss it through the usual channels.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Leader of the House be a little more specific about the scope of the debate on shipbuilding? Will it be wide enough to include unemployment in the shipbuilding ports, where it is growing? Will it include ship-repairing and the recent foreign competition, which has been encouraged by Government policy?

Mr. Macleod: This debate will take place on an Opposition Motion, so perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would be able to tell his hon. and learned Friend what Motion he intends to put down for the debate. I should have thought that the opportunity for asking questions on employment and unemployment would be bound to be a major feature of the debate.

Sir D. Robertson: Can my right hon. Friend now state when time will be provided to debate the Motion dealing with the breach of Standing Orders by the Selection Committee?
[That this House regrets that the Committee of Selection by not appointing the hon. Members for Banffshire and Caithness and Sutherland to the Standing Committee on the Sea Fish Industry Bill failed to observe the provision of Standing Order No. 58 which requires the Committee to pay attention to the qualifications of Members appointed to serve on Standing Committees.]

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. It is not, in my view, a breach of the Standing Order. If I may summarise it, the position is that this House set up the Committee of Selection on 2nd November without discussion; the Committee reported in relation to the Sea Fish Industry Bill on 22nd November, and it operated strictly under a Standing Order of the House, as was said last week by the Chairman of the Selection Committee. I cannot feel that the House would think it right to move any censure on a Committee of this House which has strictly carried out the wishes of this House. If, however, beyond that the wording of the Standing Order is in any way thought to be unfair to those who are in what may be, I hope, temporary disagreement with their parties, I shall be glad to have discussions at the proper time.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Leader of the House say why this House has not been given an opportunity of tendering loyalty

to Her Majesty on the tenth anniversary of her accession? While it is true that, according to reports of which this House has no official knowledge, some kind of message went from the Cabinet, is it not rather slighting on everyone concerned that this conspicuous event should have been passed over in this somewhat niggardly way?

Mr Macleod: It is not in accordance with precedent to pass such a Motion, but, although it is not for me to say it, I take the opportunity of what has been said by the hon. Member of offering our very humble and respectful good wishes to Her Majesty on this occasion.

Mr. Mellish: May I again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the debate next Thursday? We shall have a very ragged debate in so far as there will be an emphasis on unemployment in various parts of the shipyards, but many of us feel that this is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with the question in Northern Ireland, where the unemployment figure is over 9 per cent. Surely he knows the urgency of the matter and that we cannot talk in isolation about shipbuilding.

Mr. Macleod: As I have told the hon. Member, I had hoped that it would be possible to find time for a debate on the affairs of Northern Ireland as such, although the key part of the problems of Northern Ireland will be in order in Thursday's debate.

DISARMAMENT AND NUCLEAR TESTS

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the subject of disarmament and nuclear tests.
As the House knows, successive British Governments have, since the last war, devoted major efforts to the attempt to reach disarmament agreements. We have tried broad negotiations, such as those in London from 1954 to 1957, and again in Geneva in 1960; we have tried narrower negotiations on specific points like the negotiations which took place in Geneva from 1958 onwards about nuclear tests and those about surprise attack measures. We have attempted, as regards the narrower negotiations, to


begin with technical discussions like the 1958 Conference of Experts on nuclear tests, in the hope that these would clear the ground in advance of what I might describe as political discussions.
In addition to these international conferences, we have also discussed disarmament frequently at private meetings, as during my visit to the Soviet Union in 1959 and in my talks with Mr. Khrushchev in New York in 1960. So far, as the House knows, although there have been ups and downs and even moments of hope, we have as yet achieved nothing. Indeed, since the dramatic failure of the Summit meeting in 1960, the general international climate has deteriorated to such an extent that the prospects of any agreement about disarmament between East and West have seemed more remote than ever.
Last autumn, this situation was reflected in the massive series of Soviet atmospheric nuclear tests. After these had taken place I explained to the House on 31st October last the position of principle as regards further testing which Her Majesty's Government had felt bound to adopt. President Kennedy made a similar statement of the United States' attitude on 1st November. It was against this background that President Kennedy and I met just before Christmas in Bermuda. As the communiqué issued after this meeting explained, we there considered the position both as regards the military situation and as regards the future of disarmament. Since our meeting in Bermuda, the President and I have been in close touch about the situation and about the future of Western policy in these fields.
In my statement I said that the West would conduct further tests only for compelling military or scientific reasons and that, if possible, these would be made underground. The United States has, in line with this principle, for some time been conducting a series of underground tests of nuclear devices. In this connection, we are now satisfied that substantial technical and military benefits can be obtained by testing one particular British nuclear device underground. The United States Government have agreed to make available suitable facilities in Nevada so that this test can be conducted there within the next few weeks.
At Bermuda, we also discussed the question of atmospheric tests about which the House, I think rightly, feels a more lively concern. President Kennedy explained that in accordance with his statement on 1st November he felt it militarily necessary now to make preparations for a limited series of atmospheric tests for specific purposes. In the world of ballistic missiles offensive power remains far ahead of defensive power, and we know that some most formidable practical problems stand in the way of devising a defence against missiles. Yet, while the arms race continues, we dare not fall behind in the struggle between offensive and defensive capabilities, with their increasingly complex systems of countermeasures and counter-counter-measures. We must bear in mind the claims, true or false, made by Russian military leaders at the time of their nuclear test series last autumn that they have solved the problem of destroying ballistic missiles in flight. As I said in the debate on 31st October, I conceive that
we have a duty to maintain the balance of power in the world…and to ensure that the security of free men is not overthrown because an aggressor suddenly becomes possessed of an overwhelming advantage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1961; Vol. 648, c. 32.]
I felt myself bound to accept, therefore, the military and scientific arguments in favour of preparations for a resumption of tests—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—and when President Kennedy asked for the use of facilities at Christmas Island for them, Her Majesty's Government thought it right to agree. Accordingly, an agreement is being discussed in Washington at the moment under which Her Majesty's Government will allow the United States the use of facilities at Christmas Island for a limited period and for a specific programme of tests with which we shall of course be associated. On this point, the following announcement is being issued immediately in London and in Washington. I will quote it textually:
It is the joint view of the United States and the United Kingdom Governments that the existing state of nuclear development, in which the recent massive Soviet tests are an important factor, would justify the West in making such further series of nuclear tests as may be necessary for purely military reasons.


The United States and the United Kingdom Governments have, therefore, decided that preparations should be made in various places, and as part of these the United Kingdom Government are making available to the United States Government the facilities at Christmas Island.
That is the announcement.

Mr. John Rankin: Shocking.

The Prime Minister: I will now resume my statement.
While our two Governments have reluctantly accepted the need to prepare for further tests, both President Kennedy and I were deeply distressed at this necessity and at the future position in the world if a halt cannot be called to the nuclear arms race. When I was in Bermuda I made this point strongly to the President, who was very receptive, and accordingly, on my return after consulting my colleagues, I made a definite proposal to President Kennedy that the Western Powers should make another determined effort to reach some agreement with the Soviet Union on the question of disarmament. We have already agreed to join in the work of the Committee of Eighteen which meets in Geneva on 14th March, and I believe that this will offer an opportunity for renewed serious discussions.
I am glad to say that President Kennedy very much welcomed the idea of trying to give special impetus and effectiveness to this conference. Accordingly, the two Governments have today communicated with the Soviet Government, and have invited them to send their Foreign Minister to a tripartite meeting to assemble before the Geneva meeting and to begin this meeting also at the level of Foreign Ministers. I have addressed a personal letter to Mr. Krushchev appealing to him to agree to this proposal and President Kennedy has done the same. It is our hope that a preliminary meeting of Foreign Ministers may reach broad agreement on the type of work which could be studied in the Committee of Eighteen and that the presence of Foreign Ministers at the start of the meetings of the Committee will give an impetus to its work. In order to record this agreement, the following announcement is being issued at this moment in

Washington and London—following on the first part which I have read:
The two Governments are, however, deeply concerned for the future of mankind if a halt cannot be called to the nuclear arms race. The two Governments are, therefore, determined to make a new effort to move away from this sterile contest. They believe that a supreme effort should be made at the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee which will begin meetings on the 14th of March at Geneva, and that the Heads of Government of the United Kingdom, United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics should take a direct personal interest in these negotiations. The President and Prime Minister have, therefore, addressed a joint communication to Chairman Khrushchev, proposing that this meeting be initiated at the Foreign Minister level and that their Foreign Ministers should meet before the conference starts and also be prepared to return as personal participants in the negotiations at appropriate stages as progress is made.
That is the end of the announcement.
I earnestly trust as, I am sure does the whole House, that this new initiative will be fruitful.

Mr. Gaitskell: The House will wish to consider carefully the long and important statement made by the Prime Minister. Many questions arise out of it, and I take it that in due course arrangements will be made for a debate on the statement and on the important problems associated with it.
Meanwhile, may I ask a few questions by way of clarification? First, the Prime Minister will recall that in the statements made by the Government at the end of October and the beginning of November both he and the Minister of Defence made it plain that at that stage it was not believed to be necessary from any military or technical angle to resume atmospheric tests. What has happened since then which has led to an apparent change of attitude in this matter?
Secondly, can he give us an assurance that the decision as to whether or not atmospheric tests are resumed will be deferred until after the meetings in Geneva in March?
Thirdly, do we have the right to participate as a Government in the final decision as to whether or not atmospheric tests will be made, or has the Prime Minister agreed carte blanche, so to speak, to allowing the American Government to use Christmas Island


and to allowing them alone to make this decision?
Fourthly, can he say what exactly is meant by our being associated with these tests on Christmas Island?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the first question, it is clear now, certainly on the assessments which we have agreed, that there is a military need, if we are not to risk being left behind in the field of anti-missile weapons, to make some tests for particular purposes connected therewith. I should like to make it clear that there will be continuous consultation between us. We have the British Scientific Technical Committee and the President's Committee. They are keeping in close and constant touch and they will be charged with the duty of ascertaining that any specific tests fall within the undertakings which the President and I gave last autumn, that they will be carried out only for essential military purposes and not for what I think I called then political or terrorist purposes.
On the second point, concerning the date when atmospheric tests will take place, the first thing we must do is to see the immediate reception of this new initiative. I should not like to go further than that today.
With regard to the association with us, we supply Christmas Island for this purpose and we will be informed under the agreements that we have already negotiated. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, we have the closest interchange of all information that follows.
The right hon. Gentleman's third question was whether we have the right to participate in the final decision. I would put it in this way. There will continue to be, as there is, very close consultation between us both on the scientific and political aspects. I really do not think that we shall disagree, or that there will be any question of veto, but, of course, I am hoping that we will be able to agree that further tests can be postponed. If this initiative led to any really great results, then our political and military situation would be transformed; but I must make it clear to the House that we have reached agreement in principle about the moral justification for making further tests—

[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that neither Government would, in the end, in the unlikely event of there being disagreement, stand in the way of the other.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister answer two questions arising from that reply? First, would it not be perfectly possible to state that these atmospheric tests will not in any event take place until after the discussions in Geneva? Is there really anything to be lost by making this proposition or, indeed, stating, even if the Prime Minister does not wish to go as far as that, that if Chairman Khrushchev agrees to the proposal of the President and himself then the decision will not take place in any case until after the Geneva talks?
Secondly, can he clarify the position of the British Government? Have we already decided that, for technical, military and political considerations, it is necessary in the interests of the West for these atmospheric tests to take place? Is that really the case? It does not coincide with reports in the newspapers. If there is still a possibility of a different decision being taken, can he make it clear whether or not the British Government have any say in the matter?

The Prime Minister: The scientists are continually at work together, but we have reached the conclusion that it was necessary to prepare and that, in principle, we have, alas, the duty to make these tests if we are to maintain our position. That is what we think at the moment.
The Leader of the Opposition asked what would happen if, which I think is very unlikely after our close co-operation and working together, we should reach different conclusions. I say now—I must be frank—that neither Government will stand in the way of the other but I do not think that this will arise, for we do not work like that.
My answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first point, which was whether we will postpone this decision until after the negotiations, is that they may be very prolonged. I do not think that I ought to go as far as that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] After all, we carried the other ones on for three years and all the time the Russians were


preparing. I think that we must see where we stand after this first initiative, but I would hope that we could put our full weight on them, because if we can make an advance here nobody will be more happy, I am sure, than our people—of all parties—and the American people.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has made a profoundly depressing announcement to the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members opposite do not think that it is depressing, I am astonished. Many of us who support deterrence are terrified in case it develops a sort of competitive momentum of its own and it becomes impossible ever to stop these tests.
Is it now the view that the Russian tests were of some military value, because up to now we have always been told that they were of no military value? If that is the case, can the right hon. Gentleman explain a little more why it is necessary for purely military reasons for us to hold tests in America and for the Americans to hold them on Christmas Island?
Secondly, will the Prime Minister clarify further why he has coupled his announcement of a further approach to Mr. Khrushchev about disarmament, which I am sure the whole House will welcome, because it is the only ray of hope in what he has said, with this announcement of further tests? What would be his own reaction if Mr. Khrushchev had written to him and said, "I am about to explode another bomb in Siberia, but come to conversations about disarmament"? The timing is most extraordinary.

The Prime Minister: I really think that the right hon. Gentleman has slightly, but, I am sure, unintentionally, misrepresented the situation. Last November, I said that we would not make them except if we were convinced that they were necessary militarily. We have now had the assessment, which I am bound to say has shown us that substantial advances were made in particular fields by the Russian tests. I therefore felt—I do not say happily; nor did the President—that we could not afford not to make, on however small a scale, some tests in this particular

scientific field, which is of so much importance.
On the other hand, it was with a very heavy heart. Therefore, we said, "Surely this is an advance. We make the preparations and then we come to you. We have not exploded 40 bombs a few months ago. We come to you and say, 'Cannot we call it off? Cannot we somehow stop this?'" Surely that is the right approach and the right posture for us to adopt.

Mr. A. Henderson: On a point of clarification, are we to understand that these proposed tests by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government are to be held up pending the achievement of a test ban agreement or, alternatively, pending the achievement of an agreement on general disarmament? There are two separate possibilities.

The Prime Minister: It would be very nice to get a test ban agreement. It would be better still to get a movement towards general disarmament. But I could not ask the American Government to hold them up until that was achieved. For three years, under great pressure, the last President held them up. We managed to keep the moratorium from one year to another. I should like to pay tribute to President Eisenhower's personal intervention in that, under great pressure.
I could not—no Prime Minister could—ask the American authorities, after what has happened, after the three years' moratorium, followed by an immediate explosion and tests on an immense scale, to say that they must postpone not only all the preparations, but even the final decision to test until these agreements are reached. However, if this initiative meets with some response, then we have a situation which might transform not only this problem, but many of the other problems which divide East and West.

Mr. Morris: Having regard to the tremendous disappointment and alarm that this announcement will cause to millions of people, and as the Americans keep to themselves many of their own nuclear secrets, how has the Prime Minister been able to satisfy himself of the absolute necessity, on military


grounds, of these atmospheric tests? Does he know on what reliance is being placed, and who has made this so-called assessment?

The Prime Minister: Under the two agreements of 1958 and 1959 we have a complete interchange of information, and there is complete co-operation between us. Our scientists are very distinguished men, and greatly respected in the United States, and they all work closely together. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working in absolute partnership on both the scientific and the political levels.

Mr. Mason: Is it not a fact that since the Russians unilaterally breached the test silence both Her Majesty's Government and the American Government have been placed in a very invidious position indeed; that if they decide to go forward with a series of tests they are themselves jeopardising a future international test agreement, but that if they do not there would be a danger of our falling behind in the quality of our nuclear weapons?
If the Prime Minister had the latter part in mind, and if that is responsible for the statement he has made this afternoon, will he not assure the House that the tests planned by Her Majesty's Government, and those that are to be undertaken by the Americans on our testing station, will be "clean" tests, so that there will be no radioactive poisoning of the atmosphere? The Russians, of course, managed relatively to do this, in spite of the fact that they reported tests of some of the largest of these weapons we have ever known.
Finally, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he should make the case, and that it should be fully understood, that the tests are militarily necessary?

The Prime Minister: I quite appreciate that intervention which, I think, is helpful. I can assure the hon. Member that with modern techniques, the kind of atmospheric tests, if they are made, will not add significantly to fall-out. We have had this, at least, rather comforting thought, that even the massive Russian tests have not added as much fall-out as was at one time feared. The British test will, of course, be an underground

one, and with our particular mechanism the question of fall-out will not arise.

Sir J. Pitman: In view of the disappointing record of what has been achieved in disarmament during the last seventeen years that the Prime Minister mentioned, and in the period before the war—indeed, really going back to Charlemagne—is it not perfectly evident that the present methods of approach to disarmament are either quite impossible with nations that are sovereign States, or that they cannot give assurance that agreements will be adhered to by such sovereign States, if agreement were to be achieved?
Secondly, would what has been announced in any way preclude the Prime Minister from carrying out, what was his own proposal, the setting up of a security authority so that those who might in future be considering disarmament might then be able to look to a new body to give them the security they so badly need, and the lack of which is the reason for their continued arming?
Thirdly, while we are, though regrettably, on a balance-of-power basis, is it not absolutely clear that we must continue that balance and maintain the equilibrium in the interests of our people, and that it is thus the Government's duty to preserve it?

The Prime Minister: I think that the first parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary question are valuable contributions to the, perhaps, wider aspects of the problem, but this is an immediate problem. I know that we have failed up to now, and that we may not succeed this time, but there are great forces, it may be, working on both sides, for calling a halt to these tests. If the equilibrium is to be kept, and both sides advance into this new field of very sophisticated anti-missile and other weapons, the expenditure of resources, money and effort will be tremendous, even for the United States and even for Russia.
What could be done if all that expenditure could be diverted into another field might, at this stage, be more attractive to the Russian Government now that there is, an any rate, an equilibrium. It is simply a question of whether or not to advance into the new field over a


long period of years at an immense expenditure of money and human resources.

Mr. G. Brown: While we all recognise that it was the Russians who broke the moratorium which held for so long, and not the West, nevertheless any announcement of a possible resumption of tests by the West is obviously of grave concern. Is there any significance in the fact that the Prime Minister used today words different from those he used in October, to which he referred? He then said that we would only resume tests for compelling military or scientific reasons, but today, referring to our own Nevada test, the right hon. Gentleman said that we intended to have the new test there because we were convinced that we could get substantial benefit from it? There is all the world of difference between one side thinking that it is getting substantial benefit, and a clear and inescapable recognition that it faces a compelling need. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend his words to be different and, if so, does he think this is the absolute inescapable need of which he spoke?
Secondly, in view of the extent to which the Prime Minister has spoken today about the defensive countermeasures to make sure that the offensive balance is not disturbed—which I understand very clearly—and in view of the very firm statement made by the Minister of Defence, on 1st November, that, in his view, the future development of nuclear weapons could lie only in the field of this kind of weapon, which he thought, as he then said, could be kept underground, can the Prime Minister assure us that the tests which are to take place in Nevada are for these defensive purposes, and are not an attempt to extend the British offensive capacity?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider what my right hon. Friend has said to him about being willing to defer both our test and that of the Americans on Christmas Island in order to see what response we get to the suggestion that there should be a meeting of the three Foreign Ministers?

The Prime Minister: I think that I have already dealt with the last point. In fact, the technical preparations in Christmas Island have not even begun.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's other point, I think that I made the distinction in November—I certainly meant to—between the underground and the atmospheric test. The underground test is for a purpose about which I know he will not press me; it is connected with the existing weapon system—I will put it that way. There may be some other advantages, and it has none of the disadvantages of the atmospheric test. The Americans have made one or two lately.
There comes the question of doing this only for compelling military reasons, for getting back into this terrible thing—because it is terrible to start again—the atmospheric tests. On the other hand, I put it quite frankly to the House, I do not believe that any British Prime Minister could ask any American President—after the experience of the three years' moratorium, and after the sudden explosion of these tests, prepared all the time when we were not doing them—to call them off. What I do think—and I know that the President feels this deeply—is that we should make another effort, and we have today joined together to do that.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all unprejudiced people will recognise the patience which Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government have shown over a number of years in continuing these negotiations in the face of great duplicity on the part of the Russians? Is he further aware that the Russians' knowledge that we have a determination in the West to protect ourselves against these dangers can be a strong incentive to coming to some agreement over testing?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I feel that the British Government have tried to do their duty here. We owe a good deal both to the last American Administration and to the present one for the way in which they have approached this problem. The last Administration, under very great pressure, held off from one year to another, largely under President Eisenhower's own personal direction. I am sure that no one is more anxious to see disarmament and a movement forward than is President Kennedy, as we all know.

Mr. Driberg: Is the Prime Minister aware that some hon. Members on this side of the House are strongly prejudiced—in favour of human survival? When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of "compelling military and scientific reasons" for this new essay in genocide, will he treat with the utmost reserve any information that emanates from the United States Atomic Energy Commission, which has, in the past, put out to the public information which has subsequently been proved false—though it has been retracted and corrected very reluctantly?

The Prime Minister: I regard—and I think that the House as a whole does, also—the maintenance of the equilibrium as being essential to the maintenance of our liberty. I do not think that it was fair of the hon. Gentleman to have made the imputation in the second part of his question. I have the utmost faith in the scientists working on both sides and I know from experience—and I believe that the House knows—the immense skill and knowledge of the scientists who represent us and who advise us.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: While, for my part, I welcome the initiative which the Prime Minister and the President are taking with Mr. Khrushchev and while I regard it as much the most important part of what the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon, can he say, regarding the tests, whether he has seen the full and frank statement made by Dr. Bethe, who was the Chairman of President Kennedy's Commission of Inquiry into the Russian tests? In view of the great importance of the conclusions which Dr. Bethe reaches, might the House have the text of that statement available for the use of hon. Members?

The Prime Minister: If it was a public statement I will certainly try to see whether it can be made available in the Library. Scientists, of course, like other experts, differ in the emphasis they make, but I have absolute confidence in the advice I have been given today. Our two committees meet the whole-time; we are in close touch. I am quite sure that we are only anxious to reach the right solutions on the advice given to us, both the President and myself.

Mr. Brockway: I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the

House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the decision of Her Majesty's Government to initiate discussions to make Christmas Island available for the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons by the Government of the United States of America.
First, this question is, I submit, definite. The right hon. Gentleman has said that a decision has been reached in principle, that discussions are to be initiated and that Her Majesty's Government will not be able to repudiate a decision by the American Government if they regard these tests as necessary. Secondly, it is urgent. Whenever the testing takes place, the determining decision has been made now. This decision will prejudice the disarmament discussions which are to take place in Geneva and, however unreasonably, they will incite counter-action by the Russian Government. Thirdly, this is a matter of public importance. It will be of paramount influence not only on the course of disarmament, but maybe the occurrence and nature of war. And it is the matter of the gravest concern to large numbers of people in this country.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks permission to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of public importance, namely,
the decision of Her Majesty's Government to initiate discussions to make Christmas Island available for the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons by the Government of the United States of America.
My duty in deciding whether or no to leave this to the House clearly depends on the timetable. What I am told is that no one has started making any preparations on Christmas Island yet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That was the information given to me by the Prime Minister in the presence of the House a moment ago. If something were to happen tomorrow, or Saturday, or short of the weekend, the situation would be different, but I do not see how I can get this within the Standing Order on that information. Accordingly, I must decline the application of the hon. Member.

Mr. Brockway: May I respectfully suggest that the Prime Minister stated in the House today that discussions are to


be immediately initiated for the preparation of these atmospheric tests? In view of that, is it not important that the House of Commons should have an immediate opportunity to declare its opinion on that decision?

Mr. Speaker: I am following the hon. Member's argument and I had it in mind. The distinction from the point of view of my duty is whether it is a matter which should be discussed today or at some early opportunity. Taking that view, I do not consider it a matter of urgency requiring the House to discuss it today.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Silverman.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is not the urgency indicated not in the discussions which are to follow upon the decision which has been taken, but the decision itself? The Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that a decision has already been taken—an agreement has already been made—to make Christmas Island available for this purpose to the United States. Is that not urgent, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I really do not want to argue on this. I do not accept that view. The decision is a past matter and, therefore, does not assist me in this. If something were to be done effectively under it in the sense of launching a test on Christmas Island before the House could discuss it, I would be dealing with a different position. I am sorry—and I have thought about this; I did so, of course, before I came into the Chamber—but I do not think that this comes under the Standing Order and that I must ask the House to take my Ruling on it.

Mr. Harold Davies: Further to that point of order. I respectfully submit that there is a matter of human rights because the decision has been made. There are subjects of Her Majesty the Queen who have no representation at all, who have appealed to the United Nations about the growing chances of leukaemia and who have pointed out to the scientific authorities——

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is quite clear is that the hon. Gentleman may not make a speech about it. I will hear him if he has a point of order.

Mr. Davies: The point is that there are subjects of Her Majesty who have

no other forum, but who will be immediately affected, namely, the inhabitants of Christmas Island. They have appealed, but the massive Powers have taken no notice whatever. We ought, therefore, to be concerned immediately about their future and their human rights.

Mr. Speaker: The point raised by the hon. Gentleman does not touch the point of urgency in relation to the Standing Order. I must ask the House to take my decision about it and deal with me if it does not agree.

Mr. Bowles: May I put this to you, Sir? You said a few moments ago that there was not any urgency about a discussion in the House because the decision has been taken. If we have a proper discussion of the matter, it could mean the Government's downfall. That is the whole object of the exercise.

Mr. Speaker: I receive all propositions of that kind with the greatest neutral enthusiasm in the kind of active neutralism which I practise, but it does not assist me in ruling in relation to urgency under the Standing Order. I do not propose to hear further points about it.

Mrs. Hart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—a new point of order.

Mr. Warbey: Mr. Warbey rose——

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order—on both sides of the House. I do not propose to hear any argument about my Rulings upon points of order. I hear the hon. Lady saying that she has a new point of order. If it relates to my Ruling, I respectfully say that I do not wish to hear it. If it is another point of order, I will, of course, hear it.

Mrs. Hart: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the decision of Her Majesty's Government to grant facilities for the testing of nuclear weapons at Christmas Island in direct contravention of the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, of which the United Kingdom is a member, of 16th November, 1961, which declared the use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons to be contrary to the spirit, letter and aims of the


Charter of the United Nations, and in direct violation of the Charter inasmuch as the testing and development of nuclear weapons carries with it an assumption that they may be used.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter which ought to be discussed by the House immediately in that it is not the testing of the weapons but the decision to grant facilities which constitutes a violation of the Charter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the decision of Her Majesty's Government to grant facilities for the testing of nuclear weapons at Christmas Island in direct contravention of the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, of which the United Kingdom is a member, of 16th November, 1961, which declared the use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons to be contrary to the spirit, letter and aims of the Charter of the United Nations, and in direct violation of the Charter inasmuch as the testing and development of nuclear weapons carries with it an assumption that they may be used.
I cannot accede to the hon. Lady's application. It does not add to the

urgency aspect of the problem within the Standing Order from my point of view. No doubt, it will be an admirable argument when we come to discuss the matter later.

Mr. Warbey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I want to be sure that the hon. Gentleman is raising another point of order. If not, I am asking the House to take my Ruling.

Mr. Warbey: I am raising a point of order in respect of the submission made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). Am I allowed to do that, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the House to take my Ruling.

Mr. Warbey: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion on which I have been given an opportunity to put a point on a matter of vital public importance.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot argue my Rulings on points of order. If the House wishes to challenge them, it must deal with me in the proper way.

ARMY RESERVE BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Report [6th February] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 165.

Division No. 76.]
AYES
[4.36 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Aitken, W. T.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Gammans, Lady
Mawby, Ray


Allason, James
Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Arbuthnot, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Gilmour, Sir John
Mills, Stratton


Balniel, Lord
Glover, Sir Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus


Barber, Anthony
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Barter, John
Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, William


Batsford, Brian
Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, John


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Bell, Ronald
Green, Alan
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Berkeley, Humphry
Gurden Harold
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Biffen, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bingham, R. M.
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.w.)
Partridge, E.


Bishop, F. P.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peel, John


Bossom, Clive
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bourne-Arton, A
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Box, Donald
Hastings, Stephen
Pitman, Sir James


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hay, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Brewis, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Brooke, Bt. Hon. Henry
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Prior, J. M. L.


Brooman-White, R.
Hendry, Forbes
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Brown, Percy (Torrington)
Hiley, Joseph
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bryan, Paul
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Ramsden, James


Buck, Antony
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Rawlinson, Peter


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hirst, Geoffrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Phillip
Renton, David


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Hollingworth, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hornby, R. P.
Rippon, Geoffrey


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John



Cary, Sir Robert
Hughes-Young, Michael
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Roots, William


Chataway, Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Ronald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Seymour, Leslie


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
James, David
Sharples, Richard


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Shaw, M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cleaver, Leonard
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cole, Norman
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Collard, Richard
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooke, Robert
Kerens, Cdr. J. S.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cooper, A. E.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Corfield, F. V.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stodart, J. A.


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Storey, Sir Samuel


Coulson, Michael
Kirk, Peter
Studholme, Sir Henry


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Leavey, J. A.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
LeggeBourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Curran, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Currie, G. B. H.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Dance, James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Teeling, Sir William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Temple, John M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Longden, Gilbert
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Doughty, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


du Cann, Edward
McAdden, Stephen
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
McLaren, Martin
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Eden, John
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Turner, Colin


Eliot, Captain Walter (Carshalton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maddan, Martin
Vane, W. M. F.


Errington, Sir Eric
Maitland, Sir John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Manningham Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Farr, John
Marshall, Douglas
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Fisher, Nigel
Marten, Neil
Walker, Peter




Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Ward, Dune Irene
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Woollam, John


Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Worsley, Marcus


Webster, David
Wise, A. R.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick



Whitelaw, William
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Woodhouse, C. M.
Mr. Finlay and Mr. J. E. B. Hill.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Probert, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Proctor, W. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hilton, A. V.
Randall, Harry


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Holman, Percy
Rankin, John


Bence, Cyril
Holt, Arthur
Redhead, E. C.


Benson, sir George
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Reynolds, G. W.


Blackburn, F.
Hoy, James H.
Rhodes, H.


Blyton, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hunter, A. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowles Frank
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Ross, William


Boyden, James
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Short, Edward


Brockway, A. Fenner
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Skeffington, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, George
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Callaghan, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Small, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Snow, Julian


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cronin, John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Steele, Thomas


Darling, George
Kelley, Richard
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, Dr. Horace
Stones, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Deer, George
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Swingler, Stephen


Diamond, John
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Symonds, J. B.


Dodds, Norman
Lipton, Marcus
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Donnelly, Desmond
MacCott, James
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Driberg, Tom
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Robert (Bileton)
McLeavy, Frank
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Manuel, A. C.
Tomney, Frank


Evans, Albert
Marsh, Richard
Wade, Donald


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
Warbey, William


Fitch, Alan
Mendelson, J. J.
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Eric
Millan, Bruce
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Milne, Edward
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Mrs. Elrene


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Monslow, Walter
Whitlock, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moody, A. S.
Wigg, George


Ginsburg, David
Moyle, Arthur
Willey, Frederick


Gourlay, Harry
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Oram, A. E. 
Winterbottom, R. E.


Gunter, Ray
Owen, Will 
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Paget, R. T. 
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parker, John 
Zilliacus, K.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parkin, B. T.



Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence 
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Peart, Frederick
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and


Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, Norman
Mr, Lawson.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Prentice, R. E.

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report,

put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee):—

The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 163.

Division No. 77.]
AYES
[4.46 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Balniel, Lord
Bell, Ronald


Aitken, W. T.
Barber, Anthony
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Barter, John
Berkeley, Humphry


Allason, James
Batsford, Blan
Biffen, John


Arbuthnot, John
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgats)
Biggs-Davison, John


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bingham, R. M.




Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Bishop, F. P.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peel, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bossom, Clive
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hastings, Stephen
Pitman, Sir James


Box, Donald
Hay, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Boyle, Sir Edward
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Brewis, John
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Prior, J. M. L.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hendry, Forbes
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Brooman-White, R.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Ramsden, James


Bryan, Paul
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rawlinson, Peter


Buck, Antony
Hirst, Geoffrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Holland, Philip
Renton, David


Burden, F. A.
Hollingworth, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Butler. Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hornby, R. P.
Rippon, Geoffrey


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roots, William


Channon, H. P. G.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Russell, Ronald


Chataway, Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Seymour, Leslie


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sharples, Richard


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
James, David
Shaw, M.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Shepherd, William


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cleaver, Leonard
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cole, Norman
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Collard, Richard
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cooper, A. E.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Stodart, J. A.


Costain, A. P.
Kirk, Peter
Storey, Sir Samuel


Coupon, Michael
Leavey, J. A.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Leburn, Gilmour
Tapsell, Peter


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Curran, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r.Moss Side)


Currie, G. B. H.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Dance, James
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Teeling, Sir William


d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Temple, John M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Longden, Gilbert
Thomae, Leslie (Canterbury)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Loveys, Walter H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Doughty, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Drayson, G. B.
McAdden, Stephen
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon


du Cann, Edward
McLaren, Martin
Turner, Colin


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Eden, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

van Straubenzee, W. R,


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcatle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Errington, Sir Eric
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Maitland, Sir John
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Walker, Peter


Farr, John
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Finlay, Graeme
Marshall, Douglas
Ward, Dame Irene


Fisher, Nigel
Marten, Nell
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Webster, David


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gammans, Lady
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gilmour, Sir John
Mills, Stratton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus
Wise, A. R.


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, William
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, John
Woodhouse, C. M.


Grant, Rt. Hon, William
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Woollam, John


Green, Alan
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Worsley, Marcus


Gresham Cooke, R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Whitelaw and


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Mr. Gordon Campbell.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Partridge, E.





NOES


Albu, Austen
Blackburn, F,
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blyton, William
Brockway, A. Fenner


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Bowen, Roderick (Cardigan)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Bence Cyril
Bowles Frank
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Benson, Sir George
Boyden, James
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)







Callaghan, James
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Chapman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Ross, William


Cliffe, Michael
Jeger, George
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cronin, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Short, Edward


Darling, George
Jones, Rt. Hn. A.Creech(Wakefield)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Deer, George
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Diamond, John
Kelley, Richard
Small, William


Donnelly, Desmond
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Snow, Julian


Driberg, Tom
King, Dr. Horace
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Steele, Thomas


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Evans, Albert
Lipton, Marcus
Stonehouse, John


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, James
Stones, William


Fitch, Alan
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Fletcher, Eric
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Swingler, Stephen


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McLeavy, Frank
Symonds, J. B.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Marsh, Richard
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, R. J.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
Thorpe, Jeremy


Grey, Charles
Milne, Edward
Tomney, Frank


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wade, Donald


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Monslow, Walter
Warbey, William


Gunter, Ray
Moody, A. S.
Weitzman, David


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Moyle, Arthur
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Noel Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hannan, William
Oliver, G. H.
Whitlock, William


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oram, A. E.
Wigg, George


Hayman, F. H.
Owen, Will
Willey, Frederick


Healey, Denis
Paget, R. T.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Parker, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parkin, B. T.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hilton, A. V.
Peart, Frederick
Winterbottom, R. E.


Holman, Percy
Pentland, Norman
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Holt, Arthur
Prentice, R. E.
Woof, Robert


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Probert, Arthur
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hoy, James H.
Proctor, W. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, Harry



Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hunter, A. E.
Reynolds, G. W.
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers add


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rhodes, H.
Mr. Lawson.


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

The following is the Report of the Business Committee:
That, subject to the provisions of the Order [25th January],—

(a) the Proceedings on Consideration of the Army Reserve Bill shall, it not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at half-past Seven o'clock on the day which under the Order [25th January] is given to the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading; and
(b) the Proceedings on Third Reading of the Bill shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion in pursuance of that Order at half-past Ten o'clock on that day.

Orders of the Day — ARMY RESERVE BILL

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the

Amendments to Clause 1, page 1, line 21, and Clause 2, page 2, line 36, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. George Wigg.—[Mr. Wigg.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(RETENTION OF NATIONAL SERVICEMEN IN ARMY SERVICE.)

4.56 p.m.

The Chairman: In calling the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in page 1, line 21, to add a new subsection (3), I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with it the second Amendment in the name of the hon. Member, in Clause 2, page 2, line 36, to add a new subsection (4).

Mr. George Wigg: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
(3) Any person retained under this section shall be deemed to be a member of the Territorial Army for the purposes of section eleven of the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953, and by an order made under the said section eleven on release from full-time service shall receive a sum equal to the excess over his actual pay of what he would have received during the period of his retained service as a soldier serving an engagement of six years or an officer holding a regular commission (as the case may be).
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State for War was kind enough to give the House information about the rates of pay that the men who are either held under Clause 1 or recalled under Clause 2 will receive. If I may quote the words used by the right hon. Gentleman then, he said:
If a volunteer was called up, he would receive the appropriate Regular rates of pay and allowances that I have already described."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 53.]
We noticed that the right hon. Gentleman, in making this announcement about the appropriate Regular rates of pay, did not say anything about officers, and I believe that the assumption has gone out that an officer will receive rates of pay under Appendix 2, or perhaps Part II of Appendix 1, as shown in the Army Estimates, page 212. At that point, the rates of pay are divided up as between a National Service officer's rates of pay during the first eighteen months of whole-time service, and the second part of the rates of pay, which is headed "After eighteen months of whole-time service."
The purpose of my Amendment concerning officers is to ensure that an officer shall be treated as a Regular or short-service officer. It may well be that it always has been the intention of the Secretary of State that officers who are held under Clause 1 or who are recalled under Clause 2 shall receive the rates of pay in that category, and not in the second part of the category applicable to National Service officers. If that is so, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will think that I have done him a good turn in giving him an opportunity to make his purpose plain, and it will also cheer up the National Service officers who are to be held, so that the right hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty about accepting that part of my Amendment.
When we come to the other ranks, we are in some difficulty, because what the right hon. Gentleman said was that the pay increases would be at the appropriate Regular rates, and I quote from what he said on Second Reading:
From the date when they would have been released they will receive the increased rates of pay laid down for men on three-year Regular engagements—".—[OFFICIAL, REPORT. 27th November, 1961; Vol. 640, c. 49.]
In announcing that, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman thought that he was going to be generous, but during the Committee stage he was brought face to face with the consequences of his policy by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I am sure that this was in his mind, and that he thought he was being generous, but let us look at the facts. The rates of pay these men are to get are the rates of pay in category A of the Schedule contained in the Estimates, and they are related to men who are serving on a three-year engagement.
I was never an admirer of that engagement, to put it mildly, and I regard myself as one of the minor prophets in having foreseen what the consequences would be. Seven years after it happened, the Government came to my point of view in the middle of 1957 and withdrew the short-service engagement as the basic engagement for the Army as a whole, but retained it for certain categories. They retained it for the Brigade of Guards and the Household Brigade. It was retained for certain categories in the Army Catering Corps and the Intelligence Corps. The Government made clear that they would limit the number of men who could join on the short-service engagement. I would not say that they did it because I asked them. At least, the point was reached, as in all defence matters, when they were forced to face the logic of their own policies. The country is still paying the price.
5.0 p.m.
The overwhelming majority of the men who will be either recalled or held will not be serving in the Brigade of Guards. I should not be surprised if the Brigade of Guards is so popular that it gets all the Regular recruits that its wants so easily that it will not need to have anyone back. They may be wanted in the


infantry and, perhaps to a lesser degree in the Royal Armoured Corps, but certainly they will be wanted in the R.A.M.C., the R.A.S.C. and the R.A.O.C. In these units, normal engagement will be six years
The test of the generosity of the War Office is not the kindly heart of the Secretary of State for War, but the pay packet as it is received on Fridays. What will be the effect on a man who is either held or recalled to find that all those around him get a bigger pay packet? A man may have enlisted on a Regular engagement, but his twin brother who is either held or recalled will find that all he gets is a little bit extra. Such a man could not switch to a short-service engagement, for the minimum engagement will be six years. In other words, the rates of pay which the Secretary of State asks or will compel these men to accept are rates which are not applicable to the arm of the Service to which the overwhelming majority of these men will be recalled.
In the past, there have been the queerest anomalies about Army pay. I remember—I was serving at the time—when a clean break was made after the First World War and for a few months everything was straight. One had either a tradesman's or a non-tradesman's rate of pay. Then, in 1920, an Army order was issued about proficiency pay. We all knew where we were. It was not long, however, before exceptions were made about such things as reserve rights and qualifications. Nothing did more to cause and bad feeling in a unit than when men were doing the same job but one of them got one rate of pay, another got another rate of pay and nobody understood what the entitlement was.

Mr. A. R. Wise: Except the colour sergeant.

Mr. Wigg: And not always the colour sergeant. He may have done some explaining, but he did not always know. What should have been something quite simple became extremely complicated. Here, we are at it again.
Those who are as old as myself or a little older will remember that nothing caused more in the Army in the First World War than the exigencies of

the Service which compelled the War Office, because of its lack of forethought, to give an R.A.S.C. driver 5s. or 6s. a day to take the ammunition up to the line, whereas the man who did the firing and took the can back got 1s. a day. In the last war, the major discontent was that the further away a man was from operations, the more pay he got.
The star system was to the credit of the Labour Government, although I can only think that my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State and his colleagues did not know what they were doing, for I do not know why the system was abandoned without protest from our own benches. Today, the fighting soldier is a mechanic who handles complicated equipment costing a great deal of money. That fact was recognised in the star system and the ordinary fighting soldier was given pay for the techniques which he had to acquire and use. That seems to me to be fair.
Again, the Secretary of State for War has lost another fight with the Army's ancient and permanent enemy, the Treasury, which has abandoned the policy of buttering the paws of the troops. As one would expect, the Treasury is generous only when it must be; and when it can be mean, it is. The decision of the Secretary of State as reported in column 49 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 27th November, which appears to be a generous policy, was certainly not thought out, if that announcement is correct, in relation to officers. In the case of other ranks, it is less than fair because it does not face the facts of the situation.
My Amendment is a simple one. It would put right the wrong concerning the officer. Therefore, the Secretary of State should accept that the case for the Amendment is overwhelming. In the case of the other ranks, I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman has had time to consider the Amendment and will consider the debate on my previous Amendment concerning the bounty, when, with only one exception, hon. Members on both sides who spoke supported my Amendment. I believe that the same thing will happen today. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will enable us to make up some of the time we have lost by accepting


my Amendments, both on Clause 1 and and Clause 2, without further discussion.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I do not know how my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) feels when speaking to a Committee packed to full capacity with standing room only. What is it that drives hon. Members away when we are discussing Army matters? These are matters of considerable importance, particularly when we are discussing the situation of the National Service men who either are to be retained for an additional six months or, having left the Service, are to be brought back into it for an additional six months, and, in particular, when we are now discussing an Amendment concerning the emoluments of the men in question, for whom it is an important and vital consideration. However, there it is and we have to make the best of it.
I am not very much concerned with the technicalities of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley argues learnedly on matters of this sort. I am concerned with the practical application of the matters that we have had under review in Committee in relation to remuneration. Before we dispose of the Amendment, I should like the Secretary of State for War to tell the Committee the exact rates of pay which the two categories of National Service men are to receive.
First, we have the category of men who are retained for an additional six months. The Secretary of State and I had some controversy on this subject during the earlier Committee stage. I gather from what he wrote to me and from what subsequently was said in Committee that the National Service men of a certain grade and after a certain period of service would receive the same remuneration as privates second grade who had enlisted in the Regular Forces for a period of six years. That is how I understood it. Boiled down to practical considerations, that would mean that National Service men in this category who are to be retained for six months will receive 16s. a day. I should like to be reassured about that.
Now, I come to the second category, the men who after two years with the Colours as National Service men, then leave, either to resume their civil avocations or to embark on a career of what-

ever kind it may be, and are then drawn back into the Service because of this alleged crisis or emergency and have to serve another six months. I want to know What they are to receive.
It has been pointed out over and over again, on Second Reading and in Committee, that nobody doubts the unfairness and possible injustice which are likely to emerge as a result of the provisions of the Bill. Men who have served two years will discover all of a sudden that they have to stay for another six months, when they were hoping to leave the Service and embark on a career, engage in a trade, or resume an apprenticeship. There will be men also, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) has remarked, who will have left the Service after two years and embarked on a career. Perhaps they will have entered the medical profession or will be about to enter a practice in that or some other profession. Perhaps they will have just terminated their apprenticeship, have become craftsmen or have engaged in small business operations. These men are now to be forcibly taken away from their civil occupations and brought back into the Service.
There may be a case for this. I have never been happy about it and perhaps we can discuss it on Third Reading later today. The Secretary of State for War knows his own business best, and those who have served in Service Departments know that extraordinary difficulties arise the details of which cannot always be conveyed to people outside the Department. I accept that, but if men are to be treated in this fashion, which will seem unjust and unfair to them and to their friends and relatives and to the public generally, then for heaven's sake let us treat them reasonably in the matter of pay.
The right hon. Gentleman rejected the idea of a bounty for these men. It is to be paid to the "Ever-readies", the men who volunteer through the Territorial Army for Regular service. I take no exception to that and I have said so previously in Committee. I do not dislike the idea of the "Ever-readies". It is the best part of the Bill, but if a bounty is to be applied to the "Ever-readies" surely some additional remuneration should be paid to the ex-National


Service men and the men who are to be retained for another six months so as to bring them up to the level of the Regulars. They should be paid, if not the "Ever-readies" bounty, then at any rate something approximating to it. This is the purpose of the Amendment, which I think is very reasonable.
I should like to have from the right hon. Gentleman some reassurance of my impression, and it is no more than that, that the intention was to see that the National Service men who with 16 months' to 18 months' service receive about 11s. a day will go up to 16s. a day as a minimum, because they have entered the grade which is approximate to the Regular grade where men have enlisted for six years. If there is injustice and unfairness, and if there is apprehension in the minds of the men concerned and of their friends and relatives and of hon. Members, we can at least say to these men, "If you are being extracted forcibly from your civil occupation you will lose a great deal both as regards your career and your remuneration, but at any rate the Army will treat you reasonably." That is what I would do if I were in the right hon. Gentleman's place and I hope that he will do it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley mentioned what was done when we had a Labour Government and we had the star system. He was a little mischievous when he said that the reason why we adopted that scheme was that we did not know what we were doing. Very well, but we raised pay, pensions and gratuities beyond the expectations of the men in the Army.

Mr. Wigg: I congratulated the Labour Government. I supported them, over and over again, but the difficulty was that I was the only one to take the trouble to find out what they were doing. All I said was that I could not understand why, having been introduced, the star system has been done away with without protest.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: That is better. As long as my hon. Friend discharges adequately his duty of criticising the present Government as well as occasionally expressing his displeasure with the Labour

Government, I do not mind. However, our co-operation was effective, and I am sure quite adequate. It has been maintained over a period of years, to the surprise of many people who cannot understand how co-operation of this kind can stand up to the ravages of time and the criticism to which it is subjected in certain quarters.
At any rate, that is what we did. Our purpose at the time can be expressed in a phrase which I then used. When I left the Ministry of Fuel and Power I said, "I want to treat the soldiers as well as the miners should be treated." In other words, I wanted to see the men in the Services, whether National Service men or Regulars, including the officers, treated as well as men in similar capacities in civil life. I hope that that is what the right hon. Gentleman would do and that if he cannot accept the Amendment he will give an assurance that the men will be treated as well as they expect and we hope.

Mr. William Yates: I follow the right hon. Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) in saying that I also should have thought that the Committee would have been better attended. I have had a great number of letters from young people in this category who have been or are to be doctors or members of some other profession. It is astonishing when one thinks of their predicament. They may be about to take up a scholarship to some university abroad. They may want to attend a course in America, or they may have an appointment in one of the London hospitals, and they are to be recalled. Some of them in this class of recall do not know whether they will be recalled. It seems to be altogether a most unfortunate position for many of them.
If we are to treat these specialist people like this then frankly, judging from what I have been told by constituents, both officers in the R.A.M.C. and other ranks, the Committee should accept the Amendment and make absolutely certain that those who are called under this pernicious form of selection shall be treated during the time in which they have to serve the country as if they were part of the Regular Forces of the Crown. I therefore support the Amendment in relation to those officers and other ranks. The country has put these


young men into a very difficult predicament, and we must therefore pay them an adequate reward for their service.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): I am sure that the Committee will agree with me when I say that I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) back with us and in good voice. We missed him during our last discussions and I thought that even the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was not absolutely his own brilliant self without the stimulus of his hon. Friend. We are glad to have heard them both in action again today. Something was said about there not being a great number of hon. Members present. In a sense that may be understandable, because, in the absence of the hon. Member for Dudley, we had a fairly exhaustive discussion of this subject at the conclusion of the Committee stage. But that is not to say that the hon. Gentleman has not done the Committee a service in moving his Amendment and giving the Government another opportunity of trying to explain exactly how this matter stands.
The hon. Gentleman began by asking me a question about the rates of pay of officers, and I think that I could well begin by giving him the assurance that he seeks. The pay of officers is differently based from the pay of other ranks, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and it depends in all cases on rank and length of service. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is to be found at page 208 of the Army Estimates where he will see the rates of pay and allowances of Regular officers and short-service officers, and those are the rates which will be applicable to National Service officers under my right hon. Friend's proposals.
During the debate in Committee, there was a certain amount of discussion between the right hon. Member for Easington, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about comparisons between rates of pay, and I shall endeavour later in my remarks to answer the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked and try to clear up the matter once for all. But I do not want to go too deeply and become too involved in giving specific figures about specific rates because they are difficult to understand across the Floor of the

Committee. I have the details with me and I shall, in order to elucidate the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman, refer to the Army Estimates where the information is all set out, but I do not believe that the principle raised by the hon. Member for Dudley turns on these details. I think it is a matter of principle which I can discuss and explain better, leaving the details apart.
The question, as I see it, is simply this. In his speech on Second Reading my right hon. Friend announced that retained and recalled National Service men would get the rate of Regular pay applicable to men serving on a three-year Regular engagement. He went on to explain that this increase of pay for those affected was intended as some measure of compensation for what they are being told they must undertake.
The hon. Member for Dudley today has, I think, sought to imply that this increase is not enough and that we are not being sufficiently generous. All I can say is that if he will refresh his memory—he may not even need to refresh it—and consider, for example, what was proposed in 1950 when hon. Members opposite were in our position and when National Service men who were retained were brought up to the Regular rate at the beginning of the Korean War, and compare that with what my right hon. Friend is now proposing, noting the respective increases that were made then and are being proposed now, I do not think that the figures will entitle him to press any charge of a lack of generosity upon my right hon. Friend's proposals. I think the comparison stands up extremely well.
The right hon. Member for Easington asked me about some details on which he had had correspondence with my right hon. Friend. The comparisons that were given to him by my right hon. Friend were selected comparisons picked out from among the various grades and trades in the Army, as mentioned in the Estimates, but the comparisons were made between Regulars in those various grades and trades, and National Service men in comparable grades and trades. The best way to clear this up is to refer the right hon. Gentleman to page 220 of the Army Estimates where he will find the rates of pay of National Service men.


He should compare the details that he finds there with the same classifications which he will find on pages 216 and 218, and he will see there set out the answer to his question. Comparable grades and trades among National Service men will go on to the rate as laid down for Regulars, but it will be in accordance with my right hon. Friend's original proposal, the rate for three-year men. I will go on to explain that in reply to the hon. Member for Dudley.
I always study with great care the speeches of the right hon. Member for Easington and I was struck by something that he said in Committee on 31st January of this year. He said that the disparity between the pay of the National Service men and the Regulars
has been operating ever since the beginning of the National Service Act. I had something to do with it. We provided a differentiation in pay. It was done for this purpose, in order to persuade the National Service men to join up for a longer period in the Regular Force, and it succeeded to a considerable extent"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 1162.]
The right hon. Gentleman's ideas have stood the test of time, and this principle of a higher rate of pay for an obligation to do a longer term of service was, as I think he knows, taken up in 1956 when a new pay code was introduced which improved all Regular rates of pay. As a result of that, men on engagements of less than six years get one rate of Regular pay, those doing six years and more but less than nine get another rate, and those doing nine or more get a higher rate still, and so on.
The hon. Member for Dudley rather dismissed this principle of a higher rate for a longer term of service——

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Wigg indicated dissent.

Mr. Ramsden: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I thought he rather played down the question of a higher rate for a committal to a longer term of service. He said there would be discrepancies as between what one man in a corps was paid and the pay of an other man in the same corps. Of course, that happens all the time. We have in a corps, side by side with each other, doing the same job of work, a man who is committed to the six-year term and a man who is committed to the nine year term, and they will be on different

rates of pay. They will be doing the same duties but will be paid differently.

Mr. Wigg: Let me explain that I supported the differential when my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) introduced it. The acceptance of the principle of the differential, to my mind, was a very brave step for my right hon. Friend to take, particularly as the Labour Government had a narrow majority of six. It had my support then, and the principle has my support now. I think it is absolutely the right principle. What the Under-Secretary overlooks is this. The differential will be operating, let us say, in the Ordnance Corps. The flaw is to be found in the rate of pay which the men will get in their pay packets. If in the Ordnance Corps there will be men serving a short-service engagement in Category A, where these men are going to be, I should not have tabled this Amendment. But the hon. Gentleman is introducing a minimum below the rate which will be applicable in the units to which the overwhelming majority of these men will be sent. That is the point to which he ought to address his mind.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Ramsden: I take the point put by the hon. Gentleman. I think that what I shall say shortly will go at least some way to meet it. He has explained the principle of the differential. I think that it is a good principle and one that is clearly understood. It would be a mistake to breach it even in favour of these National Service men. It would not be fair to the rest of the Army.
The principle of the Regular Army pay code is that the longer a man is prepared to undertake to spend in the Army the higher the scale of pay which he will get as a Regular. That scale is easy to understand. It would be contrary to that principle to pay men who were not so committed as though they were committed to serve for six to nine years. Even supposing we were persuaded that it was right to throw aside this principle in the case of the retained men and give them the higher rates, then we should again arrive at a position where it would be unfair to the men who are on Regular engagements of less than six years. I


do not see how we could justify paying National Service men higher rates than these Regulars are getting.
The hon. Member for Dudley rightly said that the three-year engagement is less used now than it was. But it is still in force and does not apply only in the Brigade of Guards, which he mentioned. I have a list of eight corps where it is still in force, although it is now going out. There were 6,000 Regulars serving on this engagement on 1st January last. It would be impossible for my right hon. Friend to try to justify to these Regulars that their Scale A rate of pay should continue to apply while National Service men were being given the higher Scale B rate. It would be an impossible position.
I can see what the hon. Gentleman is driving at. He may say that a National Service man kept in for an extra six months is not strictly comparable with a Regular. But that comes down to how much of an increase over what he gets now is a fair quid pro quo for what we expect him to do. One cannot in the last resort measure this sort of thing in terms of cash.
I believe that my right hon. Friend's proposal is fair and reasonable. I think it compares more than favourably with anything done by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in roughly similar circumstances. I believe it is a not unreasonable quid pro quo, which we can fairly give without breaching the important principles of Army pay. This will be fair to all the men in the Army, whether Regulars or National Service men.
I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: If there is one word which no member of the Government can use in connection with this argument it is the word "unfair", because there can be nothing more unfair than to call a man up for two years and then keep him in for an extra six months. But that is being done in the interests of the State. The Under-Secretary of State keeps harping back to the Labour Government, but that Government did an awful lot for the Services. They set a new pattern for them and gave them a new deal which successive Conservative administrations have followed. It was

the Labour Government which breached the past, to their credit, and they often did so in difficult circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman cannot make a valid comparison with what happened in the Korean war. He ask me if I remembered what happened then. I do. An elephant never forgets. At that time my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) did something else which was right. He held back the Regulars, saying, "If I have to hold National Service men back for an extra period I am going to hold the Regulars as well." The Secretary of State has half admitted that principle, because he is restricting discharge and the purchase of discharge by Regulars. But, on the right hon. Gentleman's own argument, he is going no further because it would be unpopular politically or from the point of view of Regular recruiting. He has not done that which my right hon. Friend had the guts to do.
Then he says, "Now I am going to give them the rate of pay under Scale A." Perhaps we can toss for it. I want to give them Scale B, he wants to give them Scale A. Do not let him imagine that he is standing over the Old Bailey with the Scales of Justice in his hands, because he is not. He has lost the fight with the Treasury, which is the Army's ancient enemy, as I have many times said. But having lost that fight he should have come and sought the support of this Committee instead of giving in.
If this matter were left to a free vote of the Committee there would be an overwhelming majority for the higher pay and he knows it. If he cannot do what I ask, then it shows that one must get in a position to be able to force one's will. Let the one-day strikers take note. Let the union leaders take note. These National Service men were called up for two years. They have been sold down the river and are to be kept in for an extra six months. But the Secretary of State will not give them extra pay, or give anything in terms of a bounty, in order to make up for the financial ruin which this Bill will mean to many of them. What we propose would remove from many young men the fear of financial hardship, but the Secretary of State has refused because the Treasury is so


hard. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will support me in the Lobby.

Mr. Ede: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) uttered the last sentence, because I was afraid that this was degenerating into a three-way contest between him, my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and the Under-Secretary of State for War. They have used technical jargon which those of us who have not been in the Army recently do not find quite consistent with the language that was used when we were personally interested in this matter.
The Committee should know what amount of money is in dispute. I am told that I can find it in the Army Estimates if I look at three separate pages, but surely the Secretary of State can tell us how much a private in a certain unit which is affected gets as a National Service man, how much he would get on Scale A and how much he would get on Scale B. I do not care whether the figure is more or less, but it should be put frankly before the Committee.
My hon. Friend referred to the severe disability that is being inflicted upon these men who were called up for two years but now find they must stay in the Army for another six months, and for those who have left the Service and are being recalled—especially the officers and, doubtless, some N.C.O.s as well, who come into the categories prescribed by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates).
I sincerely hope that those who wish to do the right thing in this matter as between man and man will be given a statement about numbers and ranks and regiments sufficient to enable us to make up our minds about whether the Government's proposal can be justified, so that if we meet a National Service man who complains, we shall be able to feel that we can tell him that the Government have behaved reasonably, or that he has not been justly treated.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend will not be deluded into thinking that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley is the only Member who has served in the ranks of the

Army. I recollect that my friend, whom some hon. Members will remember, Mr. Thurtle, who was the Member for Shore-ditch at the time, used to jeer at me for the rank which I had managed to get in the Army, but I was able to say that at any rate I have never joined the officer class.
If there is a feeling among the rank and file that they just do not count and that their voices are not heard in these matters and that their feelings are not considered, we will not build up that reasonable body of men doing an essential job which is what everybody wants to see. I hope that we shall be told something definite so that we can understand what this hot dispute between my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington and the Secretary of State is all about.

Mr. Wise: I have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment and I only hope that my right hon. Friend will note that great hardship is being inflicted on a certain number of men. I have never been wholly convinced that the difference between national peril and national salvation rests on about 16,000 men, but I am prepared to accept that, if necessary. However, I make the plea that if it is not possible to go all the way to meet the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), my right hon. Friend will do something for the worst hit class of all—those called back from civil life. They will suffer to an extent not approached by the men who are retained. Many of them will have started careers which they may have to sacrifice, and, although no compensation is likely to be adequate, at least this small number of men should receive the pay of a Regular soldier on a three-year engagement.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I, too, support the Amendment. I have never been satisfied that the National Service man—quite apart from the National Service man who is now being compelled to serve an additional six months—should have been paid as badly as has been the case. It should always be remembered in any discussion of the differential rates of pay for a Regular and a National Service


soldier that the Regular chooses to go into the Army and knows what are the conditions, but the National Service man has no such choice.
It may be said that he ought to serve his country, but we must also consider the considerable interruption to his career and the considerable hardship which often follows calling up a man for National Service, especially if he is an older man, the sort of person with whom we are now dealing who has delayed his call-up in order, for instance, to finish an apprenticeship. When a man is compelled to serve an additional six months, he ought not to be paid at the rate of the lowest category of those who choose to be professional soldiers for three years. At the least he should be treated as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) suggests.
I recall a recent case which the Under-Secretary may have in mind. I was very grateful for what was done in this case which concerned a constituent of mine, a woman with a child, who came to see me and who told me that her husband was serving in Germany and affected by the Bill. She was sick and unable to work and was receiving from the Army less than she would have received on National Assistance. I took up the matter and it was examined and I was subsequently told that her husband was entitled to apply for an Army grant which existed for the purpose of meeting this type of difficulty. My constituent was awarded an additional 90s. a week for a number of weeks.
While I was grateful for that, it ought never to be necessary for a young woman whose husband has been called up—in this case he had been a skilled craftsman earning an excellent wage—to receive less than she would have received on National Assistance. It is quite wrong that young men who find themselves in these circumstances should have to leave their wives to submit to a means test. If the State takes a husband from his wife and child, or his wife and children, or even just his wife, the State takes on an obligation to look after them while he is in the Forces.
What the Amendment says is merely that men who, despite their wishes, find themselves compelled to continue their service for another six months, should be given at least as much as is paid to

those who volunteer for six years. I do not know what the figures are, but I understand that the number of men volunteering for three years is very small, the trifling number of 6,000 The lads who are being compelled to continue their service will be associating mostly with men who are paid on at least the six-year basis, so that these lads will be the poor relations, unable to maintain themselves as their colleagues can. In addition to that, they will have the worry of having left families at home.
The least which can be done is to pay them on the suggested basis and remove this slight. I should feel humiliated if I were drafted into the Army and my wife were left in a position of having to receive less than National Assistance. Indeed, I should be not humiliated but enraged. I hope that we will get away from the belief that National Service men have been properly paid. They have not been paid properly and they are not being paid properly now and they will still not he paid properly if they are paid for their extra service at the rates of the lowest grades of those who volunteer for service.
It is very important to keep in mind that the three-year men volunteer for their service and consequently accept its conditions. They may volunteer for three years just to have the opportunity to sample life, for instance. That is probably the reason why many of them volunteer and in general they do not have the domestic commitments which, we can justly think, many National Service men have. If they choose to go in, it is their free choice, but it is not the free choice of the National Service men who are compelled to stay on for another six months. The least that can be done is to give the retained men the rate of pay given to the six-year engagement Regular soldier. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: I find myself approaching the Amendment with a rather divided mind. I can sympathise very much with the plight of the National Service man who finds himself compelled to serve for a period over and above that which he thought he was liable to serve in the first place. As many


hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said, this is an unfair form of selective service. On the other hand, I am not at all sure how we can measure hardship in cash terms.
One of the problems is that if my right hon. Friend had decided that he would apply Scale B, for example, to remaining National Service men, the arguments now being advanced in support of the Amendment would be devoted to showing that it should be Scale C. We have already been told that about 6,000 men are on the lowest figure, which is paid for a three-year engagement. They might feel some sense of aggrievement if National Service men staying on for a further six months were paid at a higher rate than they received for a Regular engagement. It would have been much better if we had given special cash compensation for the particular hardship which we are asking these men to suffer, in the form of a bonus or gratuity at either the beginning or the end of their service, rather than play around with the pay scales which are the basis of our present discussion.

Mr. Wigg: It is perfectly true that the latest figure is that 6,000 men are serving a short-term engagement of three years, but the figure is running down fast and the target which the Government themselves have set is a run-down of 1,000 or 1,200 a year; so that the present number will quickly be reduced by half. What we are arguing is that we should give a bounty at the end of the service.

Mr. Hall: I was agreeing with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that that would be a better way of doing it, if it is felt necessary to give a form of cash compensation. As I said, I do not think that it is easy to assess this hardship in any form of cash. My own personal opinion is that it would have been better to scrap the Bill and start all over again. I do not blame my right hon. Friend, for he is dealing with a situation which he has inherited.

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) will not be led into going beyond the two Amendments which we are now discussing.

Mr. Hall: I apologise. I appreciate that I was straying beyond the bounds

of order and being led into expressing an opinion about the Bill which I ought not to have expressed.
I conclude by saying that I do not think that we can fairly assess this hardship in terms of cash. However, to pay retained National Service men the rate of pay suggested may cause some sense of aggrievement among existing Regular soldiers, and for that reason I could not support the Amendment as it stands.

Mr. Shinwell: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would respond—and respond favourably—and perhaps that is his intention. I should like to put two or three additional points to him. May I follow up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in the course of his interjection While the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) was speaking, about the men on three-year engagement. Not too much can be made of that because, perhaps in the course of twelve months or, certainly, in the course of two years, there will no longer be a three-year engagement. It will have completely disappeared from the Army.
I understand that this is very largely a long-term proposition. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said so when he introduced the Bill. He said that it was not a matter for immediate attention because these men might not be called up for a long time, if at all, apart from the "Ever-readies". By the time he proposes to call up these men for another six months or to retain the National Service men for another six months, the three-year engagement will have been completely abandoned. So there is no analogy.
The right hon. Gentleman made it abundantly clear when he introduced the Bill that his intention was not to call up blocks of men, but to single out men for special selection. He wanted technicians, tradesmen and the like. If that is his intention, he cannot treat these men as he would treat the generality of men called up for National Service. It is a quite different proposition. If he wants to get men into the Service on the cheap he had better say so, and we shall know where we are, but I do not suggest that that is what he is after. I submit that if he calls up these men for additional service and selects them as


technicians, craftsmen and the like, he should pay them proper rates of pay.
I agree in part with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) Let us take the case of a man who is recalled for another six months. He has left the Service and found a job. He may be receiving what is called the average rate of pay which, I understand, is about £13 a week. That is what I am told, but there are many men—I know of them in my own constituency—getting very much less. Nevertheless, I accept that the craftsman, the engineer fitter and the like, has an average wage of about £13 a week. With a wife and a couple of children he manages to string along pretty well.
Then he is recalled. What is the first thing that happens? His remuneration is reduced. But here is something even worse. The man can, of course, provide an allotment out of his pay to be sent to his wife—perhaps a couple of pounds a week at the very most. He deprives himself of funds with which he might be able to obtain more recreation or amusement to soften the asperities of the Service. If he applies for the National Service grant what does he get? About £3 or £4 a week at the outside.
Thus the family income is substantially reduced. So the hardship is not only on the man himself, but also on his wife and family. That is asking too much. We say that these men should be remunerated in an adequate way. As my hon. Friend has said, these things cannot be assessed in terms of hard cash. I agree that when it is a matter of serving one's country that principle certainly applies. But there are more issues involved. After all, what have we done with this Army of ours?
6.0 p.m.
For the past seventeen years since the end of the war, we have constantly raised the pay and increased the emoluments to attract more men into the Service, and we have managed to obtain a fairly large standing Army. Without these additional emoluments we would not have been able to retain these men. They would not have joined on long-service engagements unless they had been offered reasonable rates of pay. Everybody knows the difficulty about getting officers into the Army. It is exceedingly difficult to persuade young

men from the scholastic institutions which are inferior to the universities to come into the Service and be trained for a commission. They have to be offered higher rates of pay.
These National Service men are not asking for grandiose rates of pay. They are merely asking to be treated reasonably, and it is unfair for the Under-Secretary to say, "You cannot expect these National Service men to be paid a higher rate of pay than that received by the Regular soldier of a three-year engagement". But suppose they were? What would the three-year Regular service men do? They will be leaving the Army month by month, and it will make no difference to them.
If the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend are concerned about the effect on these three-year Regulars of a higher rate of remuneration for the National Service man, I suggest that the engagement of the three-year Service man should be extended. The right hon. Gentleman has never thought of that. If he has, he has not brought forward such a proposition.
What did we do when we were faced with the Korea affair? We retained National Service men and made no distinction in respect of Regulars. We kept them all in, and it was fair all round. Had we not done that, we should not have been able to make our contribution to the Commonwealth Brigade, in spite of having 400,000 men in the Army.

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not pursue that line of argument.

Mr. John Hall: Would it be in order to ask whether there was a difference in pay at that time between the Regular and the National Service man?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not think that it would be out of order to reply to the hon. Gentleman's pertinent question. We started with a rather low rate of pay for the National Service man, but after 18 months his rate of pay was increased, though I am not prepared to say that in every case it went up to the rate of pay for the Regular soldier on a long-service engagement.

Mr. Ramsden: What I think is true to say is that at that time there was


not this business of higher rates of pay for a longer committal to serve. All Regulars were on the basic rate of pay.

Mr. Shinwell: There was a basic rate of pay for Regulars, but after a number of years' service, men received proficiency pay, star pay, tradesmen's pay, and so on. All the National Service men were on lower rates of pay for 18 months of their service. I insisted that something had to be done. It was not reasonable to expect National Service men after 18 months' service to receive only 4s. a day. The figure was raised to approximate to the average rate of pay of the Regular. This was done to persuade men who were doing their National Service to join the Regular Army.
If the right hon. Gentleman cannot provide some additional remuneration by way of a bounty for these men at the end of their service, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—and it may well be difficult to do this because of Treasury opposition—I suggest that the rates of pay of National Service men who are retained, or who are recalled, should be altered to approximate to the rate of pay of Grade II private.
I think that I am right in saying that when the National Service man is recalled he will get 16s. a day.

Mr. Wigg: Not all of them.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): I give the undertaking that it will be 16s. a day.

Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend must not fall for that one. A Group 3 Class A man receives 16s. a day. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing to give many of these recalled men an Irishman's rise. My right hon. Friend ought to stick to Scale B without equivocation.

Mr. Shinwell: I will be obliged if somebody will tell me what the scale is. Is it 17s. or 18s.? In any event, I will take the highest figure.

Mr. Wigg: The scale is 18s. 6d. for Class III; 19s. 6d. for Class II and 20s. for Class I. A National Service man is not eligible for Class I rates of pay be-

cause it is not possible for him to have enough service to qualify, and when making a comparison it must be remembered that the National Service rates are increased by 6d. a day for the National Service man over 21.

Mr. Profumo: This is not good enough. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to persuade the Committee that we ought to pay them 16s. Now that he has found that this is not the scale, he wants to change what he proposed. He accepted that 16s. would be fair, and that is what the figure will be.

Mr. Shinwell: I said that I wanted the rates of pay for these men to approximate to the rates of pay of the second-grade private on Scale B. If I was misled, it was the right hon. Gentleman who misled me.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Wycombe was here last week when we were discussing this matter. The right hon. Gentleman and I had some correspondence about this. It was all very friendly, and everybody was amiable about it—certainly I was. The right hon. Gentleman informed me about the two rates of pay. The National Service man received 11s. and the Regular received 16s. I said that this was too great a disparity. Apparently I was mistaken about the figure, but that is the information I received from the right hon. Gentleman. I suggested that instead of giving the National Service man 11s. we should give him 16s. If the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned that latter figure, it would not have occurred to me.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley thinks that I am falling for something, I am going to fall in with the higher rate of pay if the right hon. Gentleman will agree to it, but at any rate I hope that he will be reasonable about the whole matter and conform to the views of the Committee. It is obvious that everyone in the Committee wants the National Service men who are called up and retained to get a fair deal. We do not want these men to be more discontented than is necessary. Let us, at any rate, present an appearance of justice and fairness, and let the men understand that we are thinking about their needs and are anxious to provide for them and their families the kind of


life which is comparable to the kind of life we want for people in civil occupations.

Mr. Ramsden: It seems that the Committee is fated not to have a discussion about this matter without getting drawn into techincalities about rates, which I began by saying that I was anxious to avoid. I want to give some details in reply to questions raised by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked for some examples of the rates of pay National Service men were now getting, and what they would get when they go on to the three-year Regular rate. The ordinary Grade II private—and the majority will be in Grade II—who is over 21 years of age and has completed over eighteen months' service, as a rifleman, fusilier, or whatever the case may be, is now receiving 11s. a day and will go on to the Scale A rate of 16s. a day.
Among the later release groups which may be retained there will probably be a rather higher than normal percentage of tradesmen and technicians, because among them will be many who will have been deferred. A tradesman, receiving 12s a day as a National Service man, will receive 17s. a day, and a National Service technician who is at present receiving 12s. a day will receive 19s. 6d. The pay of the ordinary lance-corporal will rise from 11s. 6d. at the National Service rate to 18s., and if he is a technician it will rise from 12s. 6d. to 21s. 6d.
These increments are what we, in the North Country—and the right hon. Member for South Shields will understand it—call into-pocket increments, over and above the ordinary allowances in respect of food and quartering which a soldier receives. This is a fair point to make. When we take into consideration the commitments which other people in civilian life have to allow for out of their pay packets, we see that many of these will have previously been met for the soldier, so that the increases we are proposing are direct into-pocket increases.

Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. Member answer the question I raised about the recalled National Service man who has a wife and child? What will the wife and child receive, and what will the

soldier have to give up in respect of them?

Mr. Ramsden: We have been over all this ground. The National Service man, if married, will receive a marriage allowance, which will rise from the present rate of £2 2s. a week to £3 17s. a week, because he will be drawing marriage allowance at the unaccommodated rate. He will be eligible for a National Service grant which, as the hon. Member knows, is assessed by taking the family's needs and then by deducting the amount of marriage allowance and the qualifying allotment which the soldier makes to his wife out of his pay in order to get the allowance. Subject to that, National Service men on the higher rate of pay and with marriage allowances will continue to receive National Service grants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) asked about special treatment for men falling under Clause 2. We debated this matter earlier, but my hon. Friend may have forgotten that we are to pay a special gratuity to men recalled under that Clause.
From the remaining points which have been raised since I last replied it is clear that hon. Members of the Committee find themselves in fundamental disagreement. I have a feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) was right when he said that it is very difficult to assess this matter in terms of cash, and that, in all probability, if the Government had suggested the rate for which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is asking, the human feelings that animate Oppositions at these times would have prompted hon. Members opposite to ask for an even higher rate. There is a fundamental disagreement between us. I regard what my right hon. Friend is proposing as fair, for the reasons which I tried to give the Committee when I first spoke, and I regret that the Government cannot accept the Amendments which the hon. Members are proposing.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I cannot agree with the closing words of the Under-Secretary. I agree with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) that it is completely wrong to approach this problem by trying to compensate by a cash payment


the tearing away from his home and family for a period of up to six months someone who is recalled under Clause 2. We cannot properly compensate such a person. But we are on a completely different argument at the moment. We are considering whether such a man should be paid on the three-year scale or on Scale B. The argument that such a man should be paid on Scale C instead of Scale B would not stand up for five minutes.
The only justification that we have had for not accepting the Amendments and paying these men on the three-year scale is that 6,000 men at present in the Army are serving a three-year engagement, and that they will feel dissatisfied if men who have done eighteen months or two years' National Service are called back for a further period and are paid on the three-year scale.
That argument completely ignores the fact that these 6,000 men are serving voluntarily on three-year engagements; that they have signed on the dotted line to serve for a certain time at a certain rate of pay, knowing that, in the vast majority of cases, they could probably have signed on for a period of six years or even longer and obtained a higher rate, if they had so desired. They signed on for a period of three years and they knew the conditions under which they were going to serve.
The National Service men with whom we are dealing will have had no choice in the matter. They thought that they would serve only for a specific period, but they will find that we are changing the rules of the game and that they are being asked to serve for another six months. There is no comparison between the National Service men whom we are talking about and the 6,000 men who have entered into voluntary agreements to serve for three years.
Further, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) pointed out—and this has not been contradicted—most of the men who will be recalled for a period of up to six months will in all probability be serving in units which will not contain any of the 6,000 men on three-year engagements. My hon. Friend took the line that it was most unlikely that, in a unit containing men who had been recalled for a period of

up to six months, there would be any men serving a three-year engagement, although there would probably be a considerable number of men on six-year engagements.
We were given a categorical assurance during the Second Reading debate, by the Secretary of State himself, that when these men were retained for six months or recalled for a period of up to six months they would be given Regular rates of pay.

Mr. Profumo: I specifically referred to Regular rates of pay, Scale A.

Mr. Reynolds: I am open to correction on that point, but I cannot remember any reference to a scale. Perhaps one of my hon. Friends will he able to find it.

Mr. Wigg: The Minister did not mention any scale. He said:
From the date when they would have been released they will receive the increased rates of pay laid down for men on three-year Regular engagements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 49.]

Mr. Profumo: I did not try to delude the House in any way. To be absolutely accurate, it would be the three-year rate. I have said that from the beginning.

Mr. Reynolds: I accept that. But it was not until I looked at the Army Estimates a few weeks later—and not being an expert I had to do that to find the particular rates of pay applicable to certain grades—that I realised that such a man would not receive the rate of Regular pay that the overwhelming majority of Regular soldiers are receiving at present.
When I sat in the House and heard the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading, I was under the impression that these men were to get a fair deal. But when I looked at the matter to find out exactly how much extra money they would get, I saw that something quite different was to happen from that which I concluded would happen while I was listening to the Minister. The vast majority of hon. Members—I think it safe to say every hon. Member in the House except my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, who probably realised at the beginning the exact importance of the right hon.


Gentleman's statement—were under the same impression as myself.
All hon. Members, surely, feel that if a man is to be recalled and is to serve in a unit which is being reinforced by men recalled under Clause 2 for a particular purpose and a particular emergency, then he will be treated as a Regular soldier and he should be treated as the same type of Regular soldier as the other men in that unit. I do not think that we should take for the purposes of comparison an unusual element of the Army, the comparatively small proportion of men who voluntarily signed on for three years at a lower rate of pay than the majority of Regular soldiers are receiving, and say that this is the rate of pay which the National Service man having these

obligations placed upon him should receive.

I am certain that most hon. Members thought, as I thought on Second Reading, that this National Service man would get the same pay as most other Regular soldiers. We were extremely disappointed when we found that this was not so. We are even more disappointed now to learn that the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State are not prepared to accept the Amendment.

I hope that an overwhelming number of hon. Members will vote in favour of the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 160, Noes 227.

Division No. 78.]
AYES
[6.22 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Healey, Denis
Peart, Frederick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, B.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Pentland, Norman


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Prentice, R. E.


Baird, John
Hilton, A. V.
Probert, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Holman, Percy
Proctor, W. T.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Holt, Arthur
Randall, Harry


Bence, Cyril
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Rankin, John


Benson, Sir George
Hoy, James H.
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reynolds G. W.


Blyton, William
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Bowden, Sir H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowles, Frank
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Boyden, James
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rodgers, G. H. R. (Kengaington, N.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Edward


Butler, Mn, Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Callaghan, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Skeffington, Arthur


Chapman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Cliffe, Michael
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Small, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
King, Dr. Horace
Snow, Julian


Cronin, John
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sorensen, R. W.


Darling, George
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement(Montgomery)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Deer, George
Lipton, Marcus
Steele, Thomas


Diamond, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Dodds, Norman
MacColl, James
Stonehouse, John


Donnelly, Desmond
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stones, William


Driberg, Tom
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Vauxhall)


Edwards, Robert (Bllston)
Manuel, A. C.
Swingler, Stephen


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Marsh, Richard
Symonds, J. B.


Evans, Albert
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Fitch, Alan
Mendelson, J. J.
Thomson, C. M. (Dundee, E.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Millan, Bruce
Thorpe, Jeremy


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Milne, Edward J.
Tomney, Frank


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, C. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh




Galpern, Sir Myer
Monslow, Walter
Warbey, William


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Weitzman, David


Gourlay, Harry
Moyle, Arthur
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Phillip(Derby, S.)
White, Mrs. Elrene


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Oliver, C. H.
Wigg, George


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oram, A. E.
Willey, Frederick


Hall, Ht. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hannan, William
Parker, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hayman, F. H.
Pavitt Laurence 
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)




Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Woof, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Winterbottom, R. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Mr. Lawson and Dr. Broughton.


Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Zilliacus, K.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Green, Alan
Percival, Ian


Aitken, W. T.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Allason, James
Gurden, Harold
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pitman, Sir James


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Balniel, Lord
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Pott Percivall


Barber, Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Barter, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Batsford, Brian
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tulton
Hay, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bell, Ronald
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Ramsden, James


Berkeley, Humphry
Hendry, Forbes
Rawlinson, Peter


Biffen, John
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Biggs-Davison, John
Hiley, Joseph
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bingham, R. M.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Renton, David


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Ridsdale, Julian


Black, Sir Cyril
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rippon, Geoffrey


Bossom, Clive
Hobson, John
Robertson, sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Holland, Philip
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Box, Donald
Hollingworth, John
Roots, William


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hornby, R. P.
Russell, Ronald


Brewis, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hughes-Young, Michael
Seymour, Leslie


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Shaw, M.


Brooman-White, Ft.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shepherd, William


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Iremonger, T. L.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Jackson, John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Bryan, Paul
James, David
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Buck, Anthony
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Speir, Rupert


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Stodart, J. A.


Channon, H. P. G.
Kaberry, Sir Donaldd
Storey, Sir Samuel


Chataway, Christopher
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Chichester-Clarke, R.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Tapsell, Peter


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kirk, Peter
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r.Moss Side)


Cleaver, Leonard
Leavey, J. A.
Teeling, Sir William


Cole, Norman
Leburn, Gllmour
Temple, John M.


Collard, Richard
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Corfield, F. V.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon.S.)


Costain, A. P.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Coulson, Michael
Longden, Gilbert
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Loveys, Walter H.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Turner, Colin


Curran, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Currie, G. B. H.
McLaren, Martin
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Dance, James
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vane, w. M. F.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Doughty, Charles
Maitland, Sir John
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Drayson, G. B.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Walker, Peter


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Eden, John
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Wall, Patrick


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Ward, Dame Irene


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Errington, Sir Eric
Mills, Stratton
Whitelaw, William


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Morgan William
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Farr, John
Morrison, John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Finlay, Graeme
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fisher, Nigel
Neave, Airey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Woodhouse, C. M.


Gammans, Lady
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Woodnutt, Mark


Gibson-watt, David
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Woollam, John


Gilmour, Sir John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Worsley, Marcus


Glover, Sir Douglas
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Partridge, E.
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel.


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R,
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(RECALL OF NATIONAL SERVICEMEN INTO ARMY SERVICE.)

The Chairman: I understand that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) does not wish to move his Amendment to page 2, line 36, at the end to add:
(4) On release from full-time service, any person recalled under this section shall receive, as a member of the Territorial Army or of the reserve forces by an order made under section eleven of the Army Reserve Act, 1950, or section eleven of the Auxiliary Forces Act. 1953, a SUM equal to the excess over his actual pay of what he would have received during the period of his recalled service as a soldier serving an engagement of six years or an officer holding a regular commission (as the case may be) with an equivalent length of full-time service.
for the purposes of a Division.

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Wigg indicated assent.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House pursuant to Order [25th January].

Bill reported, without Amendment as amended, considered.

New Clause.—(NATURE OF FURTHER SERVICE.)

No person retained or recalled under sections one and two of this Act shall be required against his will to serve in an arm of the service other than that in which he is or has been employed:

Provided that the Army Council or any officer not below the rank of major-general deputed by them may direct him so to serve having taken into account all the circumstances of the case.—[Mr. Wigg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I shall not detain the House for very long, but this new Clause contains a matter which is important, not only in my view, but, I think, in the view of the Secretary of State for War. There is no doubt that as the Secretary of State uses powers under Clause 1 he will find it necessary to post men from one unit in the same arm to another, and I should think it very likely from one arm of the Service to another. This will exacerbate the already outraged feelings of men coming from, say, a "crack" Army unit in the Middle East or the Far East, to Germany, and finding themselves posted to a hospital as orderlies. What

they would say would have to be heard to be believed.
I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of this. It seems inevitable that such happenings should occur, the proposals by the Secretary of State being what they are. I therefore think it right that the men who are called upon to suffer what they will regard as an outrage should be safeguarded to the fullest possible extent. The decision to post a man from one arm to another should not be taken lightly. One of the ways of safeguarding the rights of the soldier is for the powers to undertake such action to be vested in an officer not below the rank of major-general to whom the powers will have been directly deputed by the Army Council.
I am not, and never have been, an uninhibited enthusiast for what I call the "tribal system", but, as we have got it, I respect the fact that our men are better soldiers because they serve in particular regiments. I think that the argument is often overdone and many times in the course of our debates I have pointed out that men serve with as great loyalty and pride in the Royal Artillery or the Royal Army Ordnance Corps as they do in a county regiment which is proud of its traditions.
In the past I have asked what has happened to the Corps of Cavalry. There was a time when it was Cavalry of the Line. When it was formed thirty years ago, men were transferred from one regiment to another in the days before the appointment of the Royal Armoured Corps. A tradition grew up in that corps which was observed and of which men were proud. It may be overdone, but men have great pride in their cap and collar badges and in their regimental traditions.
If the transfer has to be made at the end of a man's National Service and he is to be taken—say, in an extreme case—from the Royal Armoured Corps in the Middle East and put into one of the other arms, this power should not be taken lightly. It should be exercised with great care and with due regard to the feelings of the men so posted. I ask the Secretary of State that such a man during that service, even if it were service with the R.A.M.C., the R.A.O.C. or R.E.M.E., should be allowed to retain his cap badge and regimental traditions.


He should not be regarded as a soldier of the R.A.M.C., but as still belonging to the regiment of the line to which he was originally posted. This would be a minimum act of sympathetic understanding of a great tradition in the Army which ought not to be passed over lightly.
I do not excuse myself for bringing this matter before the House tonight.

Mr. Profumo: Under Section 3 of the Army Act, 1955, a Regular soldier may not be transferred in peace time, without his consent, from one corps to another unless an order to that effect has been made by a member of the Army Council. In war, or if men of the Reserve are called out on permanent service, he may be transferred without the necessity for an order at Army Council level. The position is quite different with regard to National Servicemen of all kinds. They may be transferred between corps in peace or in war without their consent.
Under Clause 4 (2) of the Bill the Army Act is applied to all men affected by the Bill as it applies to National Service men. It follows that retained, and, of course, recalled, National Service men may similarly be transferred between corps without their consent. This is by intention. The position of National Service men has never been any different during their service. While, generally speaking, it would be a misuse of resources not to use a man in the branch of the service in which he has been trained, none the less to accept the new Clause would restrict the ability to make the best use of the powers of the Bill.
Power to transfer between corps is essential for certain trades which are common to most arms, for instance, drivers. In relation to such trades it would impose unacceptable delay to have to refer the need for transfer for a review by the general officer commanding, or more so, at Army Council level. This is particularly important with reference to recalled men who might have to be used in conditions of an emergency where it may not be possible to arrange for a reference which the new Clause envisages in the time available.
Under Clause 1, we should not retain any man—I have said this before—who is not required for strictly military purposes. But if a man is a driver in, for example, the Royal Armoured Corps in B.A.O.R., and assuming that there were enough drivers in the Royal Armoured Corps but that there was a considerable shortage of drivers in the R.A.S.C., for strictly military reasons this man—as was envisaged by the hon. Member for Dudley—might be transferred for the remainder of his service.
I can give the hon. Member an assurance: in practice, it is unlikely that this will go on to any great extent. But if we are to work on the understanding that we shall retain as few men as possible, I cannot agree to have our hands tied legislatively in the way in which they would be by the acceptance of the hon. Member's Motion. The few transfers which might have to take place will be authorised only by the War Office. I can give that as an undertaking, but I cannot have it made statutory. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
The extent to which recalled men may be transferred between corps would depend on the circumstances of the recall. Broadly speaking, they would be called up to their own corps. As I see it, there will be no question of a "general post". But we must have freedom to direct men to serve where they are needed. I do not feel that I can go further, except to say a word about the problem of the cap badges. It is not quite so easy as it might appear to be. Let me divide it between the "teeth arms" and the "tail". I do not think that there will be difficulty regarding the "tail", the transfer, for example, of a man from the R.E.M.E. to, it may be, the R.A.S.C. He could keep his badges. That could be arranged.
It would breach a very long tradition if a man were to move from one corps to another in the "teeth arms" and not change his cap badge. I can go no further than that, but I will give an undertaking that so long as the two commanding officers concerned have no objection I will see that in such an instance no objection is raised by the Army Council. I should like to leave the matter there, with that elasticity. I hope that what I have said will satisfy the


House that there will not be an abuse on the scale which the hon. Member for Dudley might fear.

Mr. Shinwell: If I understand the right hon. Gentleman, his intention is not to transfer any recalled National Service man from one corps to another, or from one unit to another, or, it may be, from one theatre to another, in time of peace without a definite understanding that the War Office has so directed. It seems to me that that is all the assurance that is required.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) regards this matter from the standpoint of a professional soldier and is concerned about what is called the "tribal system". But in the position occupied by the right hon. Gentleman, who has to make do with the number of men at his command, and bearing in mind the rather difficult circumstances, it seems to me that it would be asking too much to tie his hands in this way.
The only caveat I would venture to enter is that it would be a very odd proceeding if a National Service man who was recalled, and who was perhaps a tradesman, an expert driver or a technician, could be transferred to a unit where he might be called on to undertake tasks not strictly military in character. The right hon. Gentleman has said—we took note of it—that transfers would occur only if there was a strictly military purpose for them. But it depends on the interpretation placed on the term "military purposes".
If it is to be left to the War Office, I should not mind. But I should not care to leave it altogether in the hands of commanding officers of units. It might well be that the commanding officer of one unit was short of a particular type of man, and he might make representations to the C.O. of another unit asking for the transfer of a number of men for a particular purpose which was not strictly military in character.
In the past, unfortunately—it may not be so today, I hope not, and I hope that it will not occur in the future—there have been occasions when National Service men were used for purposes which were not strictly military purposes. There was too much of the "tail" and too little of the "teeth". I

hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the men he is so anxious to obtain in one category or another—those who are serving at present who will be retained for a further six months, and the men to be recalled for another six months—will not be used except for purposes of a strictly military character. If he gives such an assurance, I for one should not care to press this Motion.

Mr. Wigg: With the permission of the House, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Motion. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his acceptance of the spirit behind the proposed Clause. I should be grateful if he would see whether the principle of long-attachment could be used, rather than men being actually transferred, and whether it is possible to safeguard a man who is at the end of his 2½ years' service. I am satisfied from the evidence given by the right hon. Gentleman that he realises what I am seeking, and I am content to leave the matter in his hands. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2.—(RECALL OF NATIONAL SERVICE MEN INTO ARMY SERVICE.)

6.45 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end to insert:
(d) if on the date of the issue of the notice referred to in subsection (1) of this section he—

(i) is married; or
(ii) having been married has residing with him children of his marriage; or
(iii) is residing with his widowed mother.

Bearing in mind the limited time available for discussion, I have endeavoured to select a suitable Amendment. As hon. Members will appreciate, there is time to discuss only one Amendment, although obviously one would have liked to discuss a good many more, since the discussion during the Committee stage, because of the timetable, was not so thorough as we might have wished. Just at the point when one began to ferret out something, the guillotine always fell.
This Amendment relates to people liable to be affected by the provisions in Clause 2, people who, having served their country and returned to civilian


life and established themselves, are then recalled to the Service. I consider that they suffer the greatest hardship and they are by far the most numerous. I am not certain of the precise figure, and for the purposes of my argument it does not matter. It will depend in some measure on how many are taken out of the ambit of Clause 2 by having been called up under the provisions of Clause 1. But the sort of figure we should have in mind is 100,000. That is, roughly, the number who will fall under the provisions of Clause 2 and be liable to recall from civilian life.
According to the right hon. Gentleman, only a small number, if any, are likely actually to be required. Taking it that the object of this Bill is to keep the Army at a figure which has always been in mind, that of 182,000, I calculate the position roughly to be this. In April, when the Bill begins to operate, there will be rather under 160,000 Regulars and about 25,000 National Service men. Those will be the National Service men liable for retention under Clause 1, although not all of them will be retained. Of those 25,000 probably about 17,000 will be retained.
In 1963, if the Bill is not operated, all the National Service men will come out, but for the first half of 1963 it will again be a question of the retained men, in the main. By that time, by January, the Regulars should have risen, according to the trends of recruiting, to 165,000 and the numbers necessary for retention between then and June will be about the same—16,000 to 17,000—although in the later months—perhaps from March onwards—some call will have to be made on the Clauses 2 and 3 men, the "Ever-readies".
By June, 1963, unless something goes wrong with the recruiting figures, the Regular content ought to be up to about 172,000. So at that point—and this is the peak from the point of view of Clause 2—about 10,000 men will be required. That should tail off during the succeeding year from 172,000 to nil in June, 1965, when, again, assuming that the recruiting figures continue, the Regular figure will be up to 182,000. This is on the assumption that there are no "Ever-readies" but, plainly, there will be some.
Thus we are really dealing with a maximum figure of 10,000 and a possible figure of nil. We are, of course, dealing with that figure out of about 100,000 men who will be affected. Whatever the Government may say about the difficulties of having categories under Clause 1—where they are requiring so few, so doubtfully, out of so many—surely it is not unreasonable to have a category which covers the family man?
Do the Government really want the husbands and fathers of children when they are living with their children and supporting them? Do they want the sons of widowed mothers who are living and supporting those widowed mothers? Those are the categories which, I am suggesting, should be omitted. They may not be required at all, but, while the provision remains, it will hang over them and will cause them great anxiety. More than that, it will probably cause the most anxiety to their dependants.
This is not a category which can effectively be dealt with by hardship tribunals. In Committee a number of Amendments were tabled dealing with students, doctors and people who have entered into commitments, and we had some—but not very satisfactory—assurance that hardship tribunals would be able to look at such cases. I am referring to categories which are quite out of it. One cannot say that being a married man is a hardship—though some cynics may say so, but I doubt whether wives would altogether take it as a compliment if that were suggested. This appears to be something which can not be dealt with save by category.
Therefore, remembering the small number wanted out of so many and the great anxiety of so many people which can be removed by excluding this category, surely this is not an unreasonable thing to ask the right hon. Gentleman to do. The right hon. Gentleman may say "Yes, it is true that we shall not want many of these people, but we do want particular ones." Will he mean the hospital orderlies about whom we have heard? Will he mean doctors, radio technicians and people to whom this will be the greatest hardship?
In all conscience, since the Bill arises from the Government's own fecklessness, must their convenience be considered exclusively? In the rare case when they


have difficulty in finding some particular hospital orderly who is not married, should they not be put to the trouble of doing so?
I understood that primarily the "Ever-readies" were to be the technicians, held on one side to cover these difficulties. We are dealing not with "Ever-readies" but with the people who have done their service and who are being recalled. In all conscience, cannot we have a single concession from the Government to mitigate the injustice of the Bill? There has not been a single concession in Committee and surely, at this late stage, we might have just something? Since we have had no concessions to meet this injustice, and since everyone agrees that this is a Bill which imposes great injustices, cannot we have this one concession?

Mr. Profumo: Although I have not been able to give any statutory concessions, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will read my speeches—although I realise that he has been here for most of them—he will find that I have given a certain amount of satisfaction by explaining what is to be done to mitigate hardship.

Mr. Paget: We have been told about a hardship committee and au advisory board which will be under a general connected with S.S.A.F.A. and we have also been informed that the definition of the grounds of hardship for these men will be widened to this extent, that where people have bona fide entered into commitments in reasonable expectation of relief, that is something which can be considered. But I imagine that that—at least, we have been given no assurance that it will, and I should welcome it—will not extend to commitments entered into before the Bill. It is a very small concession. Here, however, is a concession not of something which might be done administratively but something which might be put in the Bill to exclude just these people from the other large number.
The Amendment would not exclude these people altogether. These part-time National Service men have an obligation under Proclamation. They are still available in the major emergency. What we ask is that they should not be used simply for the purpose of keeping the

numbers up. In so far as, without Proclamation, it is proposed to recall these people not in circumstances of crisis but merely because one wants a very small number, one should be put under a duty to find unmarried men. It is a reasonable concession to make and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I am sorry that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has been delivered at a time when very important engagements have taken hon. Members out of the Chamber. He has raised matters of substance. I say at once that I do not accept, and would not urge upon my right hon. Friend, the first two categories set out in the Amendment. It is, of course, very disagreeable for fairly young married couples to be separated even for six months. On the other hand, those of us who have been through these disagreeable events, as have all of us, perhaps, during the last war or at other times, realise that six months does not mean the end of the world and that the reunion after six months is all the sweeter for having been delayed.
The third category quite rightly excites more sympathy. I believe that a widowed mother depends not necessarily so much on the earnings of her son living with her, but far more on the companionship he gives in the maintenance of their family life. I am sure that widowed mothers regard with the gravest anxiety the prospect of their boys leaving home, an anxiety which people of a different age and in different circumstances cannot really share. It is a matter of great human interest.
Although I realise that each case deserves to be taken on its merits and that a concession which is granted in some cases would be quite unnecessary in many others, this is, I feel, a type of case which my right hon. Friend would wish to acknowledge if he can. Whether the administrative arrangements for it and the degree of fairness or unfairness involved really justify a broad exception of this sort we shall hear, but I confess that I feel some sympathy for what the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Profumo: In previous discussions I have already explained the general reasons against being able to accept statutory classes of exemption on grounds of hardship. I will not weary the House by repeating the arguments now. I must tell the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that, although I have much sympathy within the reasons prompting him to move the Amendment, I cannot, even at this stage, make the exception here.
We had a string of Amendments in Committee which were designed statutorily to exclude certain people from the operation of the Bill. The Notice Paper for the Committee stage contains a mass of them: some were called and some were not. In my view, if I were to accept any one of these statutory exemptions I should have to accept them all, and I dare say that the ingenuity of hon. Members would have enabled them to extend still further the list until the whole purpose of these Clauses was altogether frustrated.
Basically, it is a matter of principle. Some hon. Members believe that the only way adequately to protect the interests of those who may be affected by the Bill is to do it by statutory exemptions. I do not. I think that the only way which is not only efficient but really fair is to judge each case on its merits. That is what I propose to do.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that the hardship categories which he proposes demand, in their special reference to the conditions under which Clause 2 might be applied, particular and special consideration. I do not doubt the force of the arguments, though the difference between these and all the other categories of hardship which I have been pressed to consider is, I think, one of degree rather than kind. I do not think that any hon. Member would feel content with the situation if I accepted this Amendment because of its special character and, at the same time, rejected all other similar Amendments proposed so far not only on this Clause, but on Clause 1.
The House would rightly feel that that was the height of illogicality. Either we accept the principle of statutory exemption for certain cases—and this may well be one—or we deal with individual cases by administrative action. I know that

hon. Members, although they have pressed their Amendments, will appreciate the very real difficulties that a policy of statutory exemption would impose.
I agree with what the hon. and learned Member said when emphasising that the men we need, if we have to exercise the powers under the Clause, will not be just additions to the ration strength but will be needed to fill shortages which may then obtain and which, of course, I cannot possibly foresee at this stage. In the given circumstances in which we might have to use these powers, we should probably need to call people up at very short notice. If, for instance, we want 125 signallers it would not be good enough to have 125 drivers or general duty men just because they were not married and were available in our total figures.
So far as circumstances at the time would allow, we should, obviously, be discriminating. Apart from anything else, it would hardly be efficient or economical to call up the first men we could lay our hands on and then, possibly, have to incur the expense and administrative bother of releasing a number of them on grounds of hardship. Therefore, quite apart from any other reason, I give that undertaking. To be a little more specific, if it is possible to make a selection and there are two men available for one post, one married and the other unmarried, we should, naturally, take the unmarried man.
I should like to leave the House with this thought, which must not be construed as an undertaking or a pledge, that in the exercise of these powers, if we are called upon to exercise them, we shall, naturally, for simple administrative reasons, quite apart from the humanity which we should wish to exercise, tend to select those men for whom there will be the least hardship incurred. This, added to the various undertakings I tried to give in Committee, will, I hope, make the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) less concerned about the point raised in the Amendment. I cannot accept the Amendment as such, but I hope that I have gone some way in meeting their views.

Mr. Paget: By leave of the House, may I say a word about that? The


right hon. Gentleman has made quite clear that he is not giving any concession other than a statement that the War Office will work this, obviously, in a manner most suited to its convenience and that that convenience will, in general, other things being equal, involve a preference for unmarried rather than married men. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would expect me to be satisfied with that.
The Secretary of State also said that, if he made this concession, a whole series of other concessions would have to be made. That, if I may say so without being rude, is untrue. All the others were discussed. From them the most meritorious was selected, the one which caused the least inconvenience to the Government and which removed the maximum amount of anxiety from the greatest possible number of people. That is why we selected this Amendment. Its acceptance would cause very little administrative inconvenience to the Secretary of State. This is something which he ought to concede, and if he cannot go any further than he has gone I shall have to ask the Committee to divide on the Amendment.

Mr. John Cronin: Unfortunately, I have not heard the whole of the debate on this Amendment, but it concerns something about which I feel rather strongly. During the last few weeks, I have been approached by many constituents who have felt considerable anxiety about the future. I have been approached by young women whose husbands are serving in the Army. Some of them have been worried almost to the extent of being in a psychiatrically pathological condition. This is merely one hon. Member's very limited experience of what is likely to happen in future.
The Secretary of State suggested that he could make some concession, but I cannot see why he cannot accept the Amendment and have it in black and white. Certainly, it will not cause any real difficulties in spite of what he says. Obviously, a very small proportion of the young soldiers affected will be married. If the Secretary of State has any figures on that matter, we should be glad to have them. Bearing in mind the

ages which are involved, it seems unlikely that more than a very small proportion of the soldiers concerned will be affected by the Clause. We are, therefore, asking him to make a very small concession.
The Secretary of State said that he would give consideration to the plight of married soldiers affected by the Clause, but he did not give any undertaking with regard to soldiers who have children living with them or soldiers who normally live with their widowed mothers. These are points which require consideration equal to that given to the question of married soldiers.
Basically, the Secretary of State is a kind-hearted man, although he puts on a rather stern face when declining to accept our Amendments. However, I hope that he will seriously consider the position of widowed mothers and the children. I think that we can ask him to give even further consideration to other cases, such as the soldier who is a widower himself and has young children. He is not covered by the Amendment, but his hardship is possibly greater than that of those we are discussing.
7.15 p.m.
In many ways the Government tend to be rather hostile to the institution of marriage. Soldiers and officers in the Armed Forces tend to be rather ill-treated when it comes to arranging postings and compassionate postings and service in distant stations. We all know how obdurate the Chancellor of the Exchequer is on things like family allowances. I do not intend to dilate on that matter, because if I did I should be encroaching on the bounds of order, but I feel that the Government adopt in many ways a rather austere attitude towards the institution of marriage. I am surprised that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State smile at this. It suggests that a rather light-hearted attitude is adopted towards a most important social and family bond.
In due course, the Bill will be considered in another place. Perhaps some qualification can be made in the Bill to meet our objections there. In the meantime, we can only express regret that the Secretary of State, who, as I have said, is normally a kind-hearted man, should adopt such an obdurate attitude to this very helpful Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 205.

Division No. 79.]
AYES
[7.17 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Holman, Percy
Redhead, E, C.


Beaney, Alan
Holt, Arthur
Reynolds, G. W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hoy, James H.
Rhodes, H.


Bence, Cyril
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, A. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blyton, William
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rogers, C. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bowden, Sir H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Bowles, Frank
Janner, Sir Barnett
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Boyden, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Short, Edward


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Small, William


Callaghan, James
Kelley, Richard
Snow, Julian


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chapman, Donald
King, Dr. Horace
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cliffe, Michael
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lipton, Marcus
Steele, Thomas


Darling, George
MacColl, James
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Deer, George
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stonehouse, John


Diamond, John
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stones, William


Dodds, Norman
Manuel, A. C.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Driberg, Tom
Mayhew, Christopher
Symonds, J. B.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mendelson, J. J.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Millan, Bruce
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Albert
Milne, Edward J.
Tomney, Frank


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchison, G. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fitch, Alan
Monslow, Walter
Warbey, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morris, John
Weitzman, David


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, Arthur
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wigg, George


Galpern, Sir Myer
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, Frederick


Gourlay, Harry
Oram, A. E.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Grey, Charles
Paget, R. T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Parker, John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Peart, Frederick
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pentland, Norman
Woof, Robert


Hannan, William
Prentice, R. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hayman, F. H.
Probert, Arthur



Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Proctor, W. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Randall, Harry
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Hilton, A. V.
Rankin, John
Mr. Cronin.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gibson-Watt, David


Aitken, W. T.
Cleaver, Leonard
Gilmour, Sir John


Allason, James
Cole, Norman
Glover, Sir Douglas


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Collard, Richard
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Corfield, F. V.
Goodhart, Philip


Barber, Anthony
Coulson, Michael
Goodhew, Victor


Barter, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Grant, Rt. Hon. William


Batsford, Brian
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Curran, Charles
Green, Alan


Bell, Ronald
Dance, James
Gresham Cooke, R.


Berkeley, Humphry
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gurden, Harold


Biffen, John
Deedes, W. F.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Biggs-Davison, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Bingham, R. M.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bishop, F. P.
Doughty, Charles
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Black, Sir Cyril
du Cann, Edward
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bossom, Clive
Eden, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bourne-Arton, A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hastings, Stephen


Box, Donald
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hay, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Emery, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Emmer, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hendry, Forbes


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Errington, Sir Eric
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hiley, Joseph


Bryan, Paul
Farr, John
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Buck, Antony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Channon, H. P.G.
Finlay, Graeme
Hirst, Geoffrey


Chichester-Clark, R.
Fisher, Nigel
Hobson, John


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gammans, Lady
Holland, Philip




Hollingworth, John
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Tapsell, Peter


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Jackson, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Teeling, Sir William


James, David
Partridge, E.
Temple, John M.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Percival, Ian
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Kaberry, Sir Donaldd
Pitman, Sir James
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pitt, Miss Edith
Turner, Colin


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pott, Percivall
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Kershaw, Anthony
Prior, J. M. L.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kirk, Peter
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Vane, W. M. F,


Leavey, J. A.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Leburn, Gilmour
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wakefield, Edward(Derbyshire, W.)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ramsden, James
Walker, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Litchfield, Capt. John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


Longden, Gilbert
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Webster, David


Loveys, Walter H.
Renton, David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridsdale, Julian
Whitelaw, William


McLaren, Martin
Rippon, Geoffrey
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Roots, William
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Russell, Ronald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maddan, Martin
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wise, A. R,


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Seymour, Leslie
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Shaw, M.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Woollam, John


Mawby, Ray
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Woreley, Marcus


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Speir, Rupert



Mills, Stratton
Stevens, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morgan, William
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Mr. Peel and


Neave, Airey
Stodart, J. A.
Mr. Gordon Campbell.


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Storey, Sir Samuel

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Ramsden: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I intend to be as brief as possible, so that the restrictions on time may operate as little as possible to the disadvantage of hon. Members. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that anybody could complain truthfully that we had done too badly so far, or that anything in the Bill, or, at any rate, any major issue in the Bill, has gone by default for want of opportunity for adequate discussion.
When my right hon. Friend moved the Second Reading of the Bill, he was perfectly honest with the House, and made no attempt to conceal the fact that, in regard to Clauses 1 and 2, it would be unpopular, or that it bore hardly upon the men concerned. We were certainly not taken aback by the reception that the Bill has been given by the House. The House of Commons is very jealous of individual rights, and what we are seeking to do in the Bill obviously approaches the limit of the length to which the House as a whole is prepared to go in the infringement of such rights and in subjecting individuals to military compulsion. No Government could ask

the House for such powers as these without overriding reasons, but in the present circumstances there are such reasons, and there is no other course open to the Government which meets the situation than to ask for these powers. That, and that alone, is the basis for the first two Clauses of the Bill.
During the recent stages of the Bill we have been engaged in the discussion of details, and perhaps it will be appropriate if I now attempt to remind the House of the reasons the Government decided that these powers are necessary. It was always recognised that there would come a time while conscripted National Service men were running out, and before Regular strength had been built up sufficiently, when Army manpower would be stretched in relation to our commitments. The present situation in Europe, to put it at the very lowest, underlines the importance of our obligations to N.A.T.O., and, for this purpose, there is no alternative to the retention of National Service men. We need trained men; we need men in 'the next few months, and the National Service men whom we plan to retain are the only ones who could be available.
Different ways of meeting this problem and alternative suggestions have been made in various parts of the House. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and others wanted us to try to effect the necessary stiffening of B.A.O.R. by a withdrawal from other theatres. Even had such a solution been feasible on general military grounds, we could not have brought it into effect in the time available. Nor would the men who would have been made available by the kind of re-deployment envisaged by the right hon. Member for Belper and some of his hon. Friends have measured up to the needs of the British Army of the Rhine.
Some of my hon. Friends and the hon. Members for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) wanted another solution. They would have liked us to go on with some form of National Service. When I spoke on Second Reading, I tried to give full weight to their arguments, not because I was convinced by them, but because I felt that it would be altogether wrong if the Army or the country were to suppose that we were shirking the introduction of such a system for fear of the political consequences. Sometimes it has been implied by hon. Members who hold that view of what the right solution should be that we were shirking it.
I do not think that the introduction of some form of National Service on the lines advocated by its supporters would be so difficult politically. It might in many ways have been easier than this Bill, but that is not important. What is important is that it would have been, in our view at least, an inadequate solution militarily and that neither in the short term, because it would not have produced the trained men, nor in the long term, because it might well have saddled us with numbers which I do not believe we shall need, would it have measured up to the military requirement.
The Bill, although unpalatable, meets both requirements. It will give us the men we need in the right place at the right time, and if my right hon. Friend's plans for the T.A.E.R.—the "Ever-readies"—under Clause 3 develop, as there is every reason to suppose that they will, it will give us the long-term

reserve as well, and a reserve which will have been raised in a way that is wholly consistent with the voluntary principle.
I should like to mention one or two points of detail which have cropped up on certain Clauses. In our earlier discussions on Clause 2, there was talk—I think it originated with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—about how accurately informed we are of the whereabouts of the men whom we might want to call up under Clause 2. As this is a point which touches the ability of the Bill to work, perhaps I should say a word to clear it up.
As hon. Members will know, all part-time National Service men are posted to serve either with a Territorial Army unit or with the Army Emergency Reserve. The bulk of those posted to serve with the A.E.R. are pre-posted, against the advent of an emergency, to a certain unit and are sent an instruction book telling them where to report. In the normal course, these men are written to from time to time to keep their instructions up to date, with the result that we will have been in touch with the vast majority of them within a comparatively recent time and so be sure that we know their current addresses. Even in the case of a few men who may have changed their homes and not told us their new addresses—which, incidentally, they are statutorily bound to do—I believe that such a short time is likely to have elapsed that any letter sent to an old address will in all probability be forwarded. So much for the men attached to the A.E.R., who comprise the bulk.
In the case of the men posted to the Territorial Army, it is the duty of the commanding officer of the unit to which they are posted to ensure that he has at all times an up-to-date list of addresses. A few weeks ago, my Department wrote to all Territorial Army commanding officers telling them to check their lists if they had not recently done so and to continue doing so at intervals of six months. This is now being done and it will ensure that the addresses of the vast majority of those part-time National Service men who are posted to the Territorial Army will be known to us.
In addition to those two ways of keeping addresses and to supplement them,


there is a third method which, in the case of all part-time National Service men, we use from time to time. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance is in a position to know the current address of any man who pays National Insurance and his Department co-operates with mine to check the address of any man whose latest address we cannot find through the other two systems. I hope that this will assure hon. Members that if the need arises, we shall be able to get in touch quickly with the men whom we want.
I hope the House will not feel from this latest part of my remarks that anything that my right hon. Friend said about his hopes of not having to employ these powers has been lessened, but as the effectiveness of the power was called in question by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton I felt that I should explain our system for keeping in touch with the men whom, if the worse came to the worst, we might need.
There is one other point which is, perhaps, worth mentioning again in connection with Clause 2, and also touching the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, about the part-time National Service men who may prefer to exchange, and to have instead, the obligation of some form of voluntary service in certain circumstances for the chance of being made to go compulsorily under Clause 2. Under subsection (3, d) of the Clause such a man, if he has the necessary qualifications, can always volunteer to join the A.E.R.1. That has been rather overlooked during our debate in Committee. If a man does that and is accepted, he will have a less drastic obligation than a member of the T.A.E.R. and a correspondingly lower bounty, but he will have eliminated the uncertainty from his position as being liable in certain circumstances under Clause 2.
The main burden of the debate on Clause 1 was concerned with the possibility of exempting one or other class of persons on compassionate grounds or grounds of hardship. My right hon. Friend has explained in great detail how we should propose to deal with all these cases, and, I think, to the general satisfaction of the House. He has explained how every man concerned will be made

aware of his right of appeal, how appeals will be forwarded and dealt with, the composition of the hardship committee, the advice that he will give to it and the circumstances in which he proposes to seek its advice.
In so far as the great majority of these cases will be dealt with in the first instance by the appropriate branch of the War Office, I do not believe that any Member of the House, particularly those hon. Members on the benches opposite who continuously are concerned with Army matters, on the basis of past experience of constituents' cases, will not be content with this position. I claim no credit for it, although in the course of correspondence with hon. Members I see a large number of these compassionate cases. There is a tradition of fair and sympathetic dealing in this branch of the War Office which goes on while Under-Secretaries of State come and go. I believe that the House as a whole accepts this, and from that knowledge will be the more confident in the administration of the Bill.
Since, therefore, the Bill, although we have not pretended that it is popular with anybody, is necessary for what it does and in the assurance that these powers, although it goes against the grain for the House to grant them or, indeed, for the Government to ask for them, will be sympathetically exercised, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Reynolds: I cannot support the Under-Secretary's hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading. We have been discussing the Bill, both in Committee and today, under a Guillotine, which has not only limited the amount of time for discussion but, what has been far more important, has made the discussion of the important Clauses of the Bill rather more dead and lifeless than was the case before the Guillotine was introduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) drew attention earlier today to the apparent lack of interest in the provisions of the Bill and the small number of hon. Members who were attending the Committee. That was exactly the position. Before the Guillotine was introduced, however, a


considerable number of hon. Members were showing an interest in the Bill and making excellent contributions to our debates in Committee.
Nevertheless, the Guillotine was brought in. It is a great pity that on a controversial Bill of this nature such action should have been taken and that it should be having its concluding effect tonight by leaving us only three hours for the Third Reading of this important Bill. Even the Financial Secretary to the War Office has just said that no Government could ask for such powers without over-riding reasons. I am sorry that I keep on using the hon. Gentleman's various titles but since he has two we might as well make use of them.
I do not think that the House has been given the principal reason which makes the Bill necessary. We know that there are reasons at present concerning the short-fall of men to provide conventional forces in B.A.O.R., but the principal reason for the Bill, in our opinion, is the way in which right hon. Gentlemen opposite have dealt with the problem over the last few years. We feel that they are to blame for the position which we are in today, not any international situation or any particular action taken by the Army. They decided to abolish National Service primarily for political rather than defence reasons. They have decided on many occasions since to limit the amount of money spent on our conventional defences. All these decisions in the past have led us eventually to a position which the Under-Secretary made out a few moments ago that everyone knew would come when National Service men gradually ran out of the Army before we had a full complement of Regulars. Everyone has known it, but only for about twelve months; years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said so.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: We have been saying so for five years.

Mr. Reynolds: I agree that some hon. Members opposite have been in cahoots with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley on this, but no indication was given to us from the Front Bench opposite that this problem would arise. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for

Dudley say that this would probably happen and we have heard it again tonight from speakers on the Front Bench opposite, but it ill behoves the Under-Secretary to say now that this had been foreseen for a considerable time.
We heard on Second Reading that the Bill was designed to meet a definite short-term requirement as well as to provide a reserve of trained men in the long term. That is the Government's intention, but as far as I can see there is a certain amount of double-dealing going on in this matter. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I have the honour of serving as a member of the Defence Committee of Western European Union and I know that that is not the reason for the Bill which is given by Her Majesty's Government to some of our Western allies.
We are told there of provisions made by all Western countries to counter the threat which has grown up in central Europe over the past few months. We are told of the 45,000 men sent over and the billion dollars of money spent by the United States to strengthen its forces in the European theatre. We are told of two divisions brought from Algeria to central France, though I do not know how long it will be before they receive their full Central European equipment. We are told of the steps taken by the Benelux countries to bring their forces up to something more like the required strength. And we are told that this Bill is part of the action taken by Her Majesty's Government to build up their conventional forces in Central Europe.
This is a reason completely different from that given to us in the House and completely different from what we know to be the reason or the Bill. All hon. Members present here know that the provisions in the Bill will in no way increase the number of men made available for B.A.O.R. or increase the strength or defensive power of our conventional forces in the B.A.O.R. area. What it will do is to stop them getting weaker than they are at present. That is the main reason for the Bill and that was the reason given here by the Secretary of State on Second Reading and in Committee.
I cannot understand why a completely different reason is given to our Western


allies. They are given the impression that this provision increasing the period of National Service by six months is primarily designed to compare with what the Americans are doing in bringing over 45,000 men and the French in bringing in from Algeria two divisions, however ill-equipped. The British contribution to the N.A.T.O. request to build up our forces in Central Europe is to extend National Service for six months. Everyone knows that this will not increase our forces. It will simply serve to stop them declining to even a worse manpower position than they are in at present.
Even though the Bill will receive a Third Reading and will presumably go fairly quickly to another place, the Secretary of State does not intend to start using the provisions of the Bill until April anyway. Therefore, I do not see how the Bill can affect directly what has happened in Europe in the last six months. It may be expected to affect what may possibly happen in Europe during the next six or twelve months, but I am sorry that different stories are being told here and in Europe about the reasons for the Bill.
Everyone knows that the Government have broken their pledge to our European allies about the number of men and the amount of equipment we are prepared to contribute to Western European defence. We know that we have only 51,000 men in B.A.O.R. at the moment. I have heard the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), in conversations with European colleagues, employing fanciful arithmetic to make out that we have more men in Europe, bringing in the Air Force and the N.A.A.F.I. to get the number up to 64,000. Those are the lengths to which many of us have to go in talking about our position in the Central European area at the moment, but the Secretary of State said that we have 51,000 in Central Europe, and the Government can prevent the total from dropping below that figure only if the House passes this Bill.
That is the position, but we must be clear that the Bill will not reduce the dangerous over-reliance on nuclear weapons in Northern Europe and will not stop B.A.O.R. operational fronts being shortened in future by getting Ger-

man units to take over responsibility for certain fronts in Europe due to the complete inability of B.A.O.R. to carry out the duties which the Government have put upon them in the Central European area. Neither will it stop the next commander-in-chief in Northern Europe being a German rather than a British general, because we shall not have sufficient forces in that part of the world to justify our claim to hold a command post of that nature
In addition, the House is asked to pass the Bill in unfortunate and unusual circumstances. We have not yet been given any detailed information about the type of men who will be required under Clauses 1, 2 and 3. The only information which I cam recall the House or the Committee being given is that half will be in fighting units and half in the tail. The House is entitled to more information than that before being asked to give the Bill a Third Reading. Surely the Secretary of State is aware by now of the type of technician and the various groups of men who are most likely to be required under the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2. He knows how recruiting has been going on in the last few months and he must have a reasonable idea of the classes of men and the trade groups of whom he is most likely to be short during the last six months of this year.
The right hon. Gentleman must, therefore, be able to give the House some information about the type of men most likely to be affected. We are entitled to the information and, whilst it could not be regarded as binding in any way, the information might serve to lessen the fear of a large number of National Service men at the moment. If they realise that they do not happen to be in the trade group that is most likely to be required it may ease their minds to some extent although it will not mean that they may not be required eventually.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has from time to time protested that we are being asked to discuss a Bill which deals with reserve forces without being given any information about those forces. He said that only he and the Secretary of State at the moment know of our position.

Mr. Wigg: I did not make so bold a claim. I said that anyone could do the


same sums and work it out for himself. I am amazed that the House has not pressed for this information.

Mr. Reynolds: I am glad that my hon. Friend supports my support of what he has been saying during earlier stages. I hope that, before we finish the debate we shall be given more information about the general position of our reserve forces.
Even more strange is the position about the financial aspect. We have had a rather unusual arrangement—a Report from the Estimates Committee on the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum. We were in the ridiculous position, having given the Bull a Second Reading, that, when one or two of us endeavoured to ask questions about the Financial Resolution, three Ministers, plus the Leader of the House, were sitting on the Front Bench opposite unable to answer our questions. One got the impression that some of them had not even looked at the Resolution before we voted on Second Reading, and that they then suddenly realised that hon. Members were likely to ask questions.
We got very conflicting answers to our questions. Eventually the matter had to come to an end under Standing Orders. There was an even more fantastic position at the beginning of the Committee stage. The Secretary of State had to ask leave to move to report Progress in order to answer points put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. I am not even now completely clear as to exactly what those answers were, but we wasted three hours of Committee time in order to get the matter cleared up. That arose because of the inefficiency of the Ministers in charge.
Then the Estimates Committee issued a special Report criticising the information given to the House in the Memorandum. The Report said that the Secretary of State was able to inform the House that about 15,000 men would be retained under Clause 1, and that the Committee could not understand why this information and the estimate of expenditure based upon it were not given in the Memorandum.
Now we have the information about the number of men but, to the best of my knowledge, we have not yet had the

information which the Committee felt should have been included in the Bill about the estimated cost. The Committee also suggested that estimates could have been prepared, based on certain illustrations, about the cost of other parts of the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of the Estimates Committee's strictures and let us have that information before the debate ends.
We are being asked to give a Third Reading to a Bill which will place 120,000 men in considerable suspense. These will be affected by Clauses 1 or 2 over the next four years or so. Until next April, we are told, no one will be retained, and then, for six months after that, only men in B.A.O.R. may be required to stay on. This does not apply, however, even to Berlin, and neither Cyprus nor Tripoli nor anywhere else will be affected. After that stage, however, men may be retained in all parts of the world and sent to do extra service in B.A.O.R. They may never have been there before, which will mean a certain amount of retraining. I believe that this will produce an unsettling effect on the units already there which will have to receive and retain these men.
We have reiterated throughout that this is not only unfair to the 120,000 men concerned, but particularly unfair to those retained for the six months' period or who are liable to be recalled for up to six months after they have left the Service. Not one of our Amendments to exempt specific and deserving cases has been accepted by the Government.
Clause 3 provides that these "Ever-ready" reserves, as the Secretary of State has christened them, must be linked with the Territorial Army. We discussed this in Committee and I am still not convinced that it is absolutely necessary for every member of this reserve to become first of all a member of the Territorial Army. It is possible that, in some circumstances, the Secretary of State may well be stopping from doing so men who might have been prepared to join such a reserve, and who have specialist qualifications, because they are not members of the Territorial Army at present.
It is easy to say that anyone, including National Service men, can join the Territorial Army and then go into the


"Ever-readies". But the first step, which is irrevocable for a certain period, is to join the Territorial Army and it is then to be twelve months before a man can apply to join the "Ever-readies".
Then there is the possibility that there may be no vacancies for a man's particular group. There is no certainty, either, that a man's commanding officer will recommend him for the "Ever-readies", or that whoever deals with such recommendations will accept him. It is not quite as easy as the Secretary of State has tried to make out. It is not enough merely to say to National Service men or anyone else, "You should join the Territorial Army to get into the "Ever-readies"; you will get £150 a year—buy a fur coat for your wife or take the family for a holiday."
I do not see the necessity for linking the "Ever-readies" closely with the Territorial Army. It may have an unfortunate effect on the Territorial Army. The hon. Member for Stroud mentioned the fact that one did not want to see members of the Territorial Army wearing side-flashes and saying "We are 'Ever-readies'—the rest do not matter." I hope that that does not happen, but there is a danger that such an attitude may develop.
I have a strong suspicion that many of the types of men the Regular Army is short of will, in all probability, be the same types of men or groups which the Territorial Army itself is short of. I cannot prove this because we have not been given any information by the Secretary of State as to the types of men or the particular groups required for the "Ever-readies".
I am surprised that, contrary to normal practice when announcements are made about the Territorial Army, when the Bill was published, and up to Christmas, none of the brigadiers engaged in working with the Territorial Army had been given any information about the way in which this scheme was to work. I know that individual Territorial Army soldiers made inquiries, but at brigadier level information was not available. On earlier occasions, however, when announcements have been made about the Territorial Army, these officers have had the information on their desks the morning after.
I realise that, on this occasion, legislation was involved, so perhaps the Secretary of State could not be definite before the Bill was passed. But something could have been sent out to be passed down to the ordinary soldier making inquiries. On the other hand, this strengthens my suspicion that some of the provisions of the Bill have been rushed in at the last moment and that all the details had not been worked out at the time the Bill was published.
I ask the House to refuse the Bill a Third Reading. It will not solve the long-term recruiting problem of the Regular Army. It does not make provision for the proper use of the available manpower already in the Army. No attempt is being made at this stage—although we hear rumours of what might come in the Defence White Paper—by the Government or the Secretary of State to make better use in Central Europe of troops we have in other parts of the world.
The Bill does not go any way towards dealing with that problem. It does not strengthen our conventional forces in any way, and it does not reduce our dreadful dependence on nuclear weapons in the Central European theatre. In addition, it is unfair to 120,000 men, and will be grossly unfair to that proportion of that 120,000 who are eventually called up for service. For those reasons, I hope that the House will not give the Bill a Third Reading this evening.

8.0 p.m.

Brigadier Sir John Smyth: Like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I shall be brief in order to give hon. Members the maximum possible time to make their speeches, particularly hon. Members opposite who may feel that they are handicapped by the Guillotine.
I do not think that many people will agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) that time for discussion has been very limited on what is a very short although undoubtedly important Bill. There has been time to go into every detail about which hon. Members have wanted to know and for my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend to give very detailed replies. I gathered from his remark about National Service that the hon.


Member for Islington, North did not agree with our abolishing National Service and adopting our present system of a voluntary Regular Army. I was surprised when he said that in Europe it was not known what was the object of the Bill. I have not found that. I was broadcasting about the Bill to Europe on Friday morning and it seemed to me that everyone was quite clear about what the Government were trying to do, although not necessarily in agreement with it.
There is no doubt that the Bill is important from two points of view. First, it is necessary in the present military situation and, secondly, it is important because of its effect on the lives of thousands of young men who have done or who are finishing their National Service. This is a form of compulsion which we all dislike, but the Minister deserves the fullest credit for his great pains and patience in going into all the measures to see that those who ought to get relief or be excused are suitably dealt with. We cannot complain about his action in that respect.
My own experience is that, considering that the Bill is an unpopular Measure, being a form of compulsion, it has been well received by the country. It has been very much better received than would have been the case if we had had to reintroduce conscription in some form or other, as some hon. Members want.

Mr. Wigg: Surely the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) is not suggesting that the Bill is not conscription in some form or other?

Sir J. Smyth: I disagree with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) on that point. If he were reintroducing conscription instead of the Bill, I think he would find that he was on a very uneasy wicket.

Mr. Paget: Are not the gentlemen who are recalled to the Services or required for another six months conscripts? Are they not conscripted? If not, believe me, they will not be there.

Sir J. Smyth: All I can say is that the Bill is much the same thing as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) did when he wanted to get the

men at a certain time for a certain period.

Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) never denied that he was exercising conscription. The point is that the hon. and gallant Member is denying that what the Government are now doing is some form of conscription.

Sir J. Smyth: I was saying that it was some form of compulsion. I would not say that it was some form of conscription. If we were reintroducing conscription, we would be calling up a whole lot of young men and that would do no good at all in this emergency for at least nine or ten months, so that we would be undertaking something to no purpose.
The intention of the Bill is quite clear. It gives powers to the Secretary of State to strengthen our Armed Forces in Germany. The hon. Member for Islington, North said that it would not increase our forces in Germany, but that was something of a quibble. Calling up a certain number of men and keeping others there must be to increase our strength in some form. Our reason for doing so is that this is a time of transition between the end of conscription and the beginning of a new scheme of a voluntary Regular defence force. This year will be the difficult year, the worst year.

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that I maintained that the Bill would not increase our forces in Germany. I drew attention to the fact that on Second Reading the Under-Secretary said—and I base my case on this because I cannot think of better information—that our present strength in Europe was about 51,000 and that it could be prevented from dropping below this figure only if the House passed the Bill. I think that that is a fair enough statement.

Sir J. Smyth: The fact remains that it is producing more men. It may not be increasing our strength but only keeping it up, but we will not argue about that. That it is producing more men is
The Bill is designed to meet what we all feel to be a time of tension in Europe. The very fact that we have brought in common sense.
the Bill, even before it is operated, has had a good effect in Europe. Just as it used to be said that a tank force exercised its most powerful influence when it was out of sight over the horizon, the very fact that we are bringing in an unpopular Bill, which has met with great opposition from the party opposite, has had a good effect and shows that we intend to do something about the present situation.
The first part of the Bill may be a breach of contract, just as the right hon. Member for Easington might have been accused of a breach of contract. However, we supported him because he had to take some measures at the time of the Korean war and we are now having to take similar measures. I am certain that the Army fully supports the Bill, accepting it as the only measure which can produce anything to meet the present eventualities. Hon. Members will carefully watch the cases of hardship, of which there will be a number, to see that the Minister implements the various measures which he explained to us.
My own constituency of Norwood is generally regarded as something of a weather vane in matters of this sort, and I have had hardly a letter on the subject of the Bill. I presided at a meeting of Young Conservatives the other evening and asked for views about the Bill, and I was somewhat surprised that there was so little grousing about it. Those young people have accepted it as a necessary measure, and I think that the rest of the country has, too. That is unlike the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill about which people in my constituency and in other parts of south London are very worked up, about 90 per cent. of them in favour of the Bill. The strong opposition of the party opposite to that Bill is very unpopular. This Bill has been well received.
The Bill brings in a new form of volunteer reserve, the Ever-readies". The hon. Member for Islington, North was somewhat doubtful about attaching them to the Territorial Army, thinking that that might live a bad effect on the Territorial Army. I do not agree. I believe that this imaginative measure will have a good effect on the whole set-up of our new voluntary defence force and that the "Ever-readies" will

be enthusiastically supported and will provide a much-needed reserve.
Some hon. Members have been doubtful about the training which these men will get in the Territorial Army, and the right hon. Member for Easington seemed to be somewhat of that opinion. On this side of the House there are several hon. Members who know a great deal about the Territorial Army. There is my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn), my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison). They are all much more experienced than I am about the Territorial Army, particularly about its training and organisation.
The acid test for the Territorial Army is, however, how it gets on in war, in active service operations. As a Regular officer, I had the experience of commanding a Territorial brigade during the time of Dunkirk. It was with some considerable apprehension that I did so, knowing that we had to go out almost at once to oppose the best trained mechanised army in the world. I was amazed by that brigade's performance and I am sure that the same will be true of the "Ever-readies". I frankly say that Territorial soldiers are not of the same standard as Regulars. The chief reason is a matter of basic training, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Dudley will agree about that. They do not have the grounding which the Regular soldier has, and find it very difficult to attain the same standard of individual training and weapon training.
I beg my right hon. Friend, whatever else he does about the "Ever-readies", not to skip their basic training. If they do not get their basic training and their weapon training right, but go to the more amusing side of tactical training before they are really ready for it, they never recover. In the Territorial brigade I found that there was not the background which the Regular soldier has.
The other point which has been raised by a number of hon. Members is the advantage of trying to train them if possible in small Territorial units. That was the great strength of the Territorial divisions which went out to France in


1940. My brigade was known as the Manchester Brigade. Many of those in it had been to school in Manchester, played games together and soldiered together. They had tremendous comradeship and friendship, and that undoubtedly was a very great factor in their favour when it came to military operations.

Sir F. Maclean: Surely that will not apply to the "Ever-readies". They will be in strange units, having never met before.

Sir J. Smyth: My hon. Friend is quite right. I know that that will be so at the beginning, and the idea is, as the Minister has said, to produce round pegs for round holes with the "Ever-readies". I hope that when this scheme catches on and the numbers increase they will, even in a small way, be able to do some training with their own friends and in their own units.
Now that the Bill has got so far and will become an important part of our general scheme for a voluntary defence force, which we are determined to see through, I hope that the House will accept it tonight. Hon. Members opposite have made their case, particularly the hon. Member for Dudley, at great length and with great thoroughness in bringing out every possible point. Having done so, I hope that Members in the House as a whole will do their best to see that it works. As I have said before, Members of Parliament are really our best recruiting agents. There is no one like them for knowing the young people in their constituencies, and they can help enormously. If we are to do this, then for goodness sake let us do it properly, and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) is, as everyone knows, a distinguished soldier whose views on military matters are worthy of the highest respect. Nevertheless, I am sorry to have to disagree with him. The Bill will no doubt receive the support of the majority in the House, but it is, whether we and hon. Members opposite like it or not,

a confession of the failure of the Government's recruiting policy. It is as simple as that.
We recall the optimistic utterances of right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench, of the previous Secretary of State for War, the present Secretary of State for War, a residuary legatee, and the Minister of Defence. Speech after speech, declaration after declaration, has been made, full of optimism about the future and about reaching the target. One day it was to be 165,000, the next day 185,000, and all under the shadow of the Report of the Hull Committee. This Committee was presided over by the present Chief of the Imperial General Staff, General Sir Richard Hull, and its report made it clear beyond a peradventure that nothing short of 200,000 men in the Regular Army would suffice.

Sir J. Smyth: I want to point out, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree, that Sir Richard Hull is now the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and that I am quite certain that he would not have taken on the job of Chief of Staff of our set-up unless he thought that it would work.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. and gallant Member, even on that issue. I do not know any high-ranking soldier who would refuse to accept the dignified and exalted position of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. There have, of course, been very many frustrated generals who had ambitions in that direction. I say nothing disrespectful about General Hull. I remember him as a young officer at the War Office. Indeed, once when I was asked by one of his superiors what I thought of him I suggested that one day he would become an even more important officer in the Army; and so it has turned out.

Mr. Paget: When my right hon. Friend says that the Hull Committee reported that 200,000 men would be required, that was on the basis of the B.A.O.R. being confined to 45,000. On the present requirements for the B.A.O.R., the figure would be 220,000.

Mr. Shinwell: I am always ready to accept reinforcements, even if they are National Service men.
The principle that I was enunciating has some validity, if nothing more, and that is my first point in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood.
I repeat, because it is extremely important that this should percolate through the minds of hon. Members and those people in the country who apparently accept this piece of legislation with unqualified enthusiasm, or, at any rate, with a dignified silence, as in the case of the Young Conservatives who were addressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that one of the reasons why the Government introduced this legislation was because they were told to do so by their masters in the Pentagon.
We recall those protracted discussions between the present Minister of Defence and his opposite number in the Pentagon. What were they all about? We used to ask questions, the form of which usually was, "Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say what was the nature of the conversations that he had with his opposite number"? We were always told that the discussions were confidential.
They are no longer confidential. The United States came to the conclusion that the N.A.T.O. forces should be stepped up. We recall the time when there seemed to be a switch from the nuclear theory to the theory of having adequate ground forces. All this happened not long ago, and must be within the recollection of every hon. Member present in the Chamber. Then, of course, the conversations took the inevitable and natural form of devising a method of building up the ground forces. This is still proceeding, and this Measure represents the Government's contribution.
We therefore have two relevant points. First, the Government's failure to recruit men. Secondly, the pressure exerted by the United States authorities, with the unqualified support of N.A.T.O., with General Norstad in command giving instructions that this should be done. He said so in several speeches, and made no bones about it. I make no complaint about this, because he had a task to perform and I would not expect him to do otherwise.
What is the nature of the contribution that is to be made by the other N.A.T.O. countries? Is this the only country which is to make an increased contribution?

I could understand it if the Belgians had increased the length of military service by six or twelve months. I could understand it if France, with all her commitments, but with vast forces, had made an adequate contribution in ground forces to the N.A.T.O. establishment. I could understand it if the Netherlands had made a contribution, and if Norway and Denmark, the only two Scandinavian countries in N.A.T.O., had increased their contribution.
But, of course, that has not happened. The only country which has increased her contribution, apart from that which we are now about to make, is Western Germany. Indeed, so adequate is that country's contribution that the West Germans have now become the strongest military force in Western Europe.
That is the position. The Treasury Bench ought to give us the statistics of increased forces contributed by the various N.A.T.O. countries. The whole picture would then unfold, and we could determine Whether our contribution was in proportion to that of other N.A.T.O. countries, or out of proportion, and if so, why.
I add this, because it is significant. There has been considerable controversy about support costs for our forces in the B.A.O.R. I cannot discuss this in any detail, because it is another question, but it has a bearing on what we are now considering. Obviously, if difficulties have been encountered because of our inability to meet the support costs of our troops there, and we are now engaged in negotiations with the West German authorities to ascertain whether they will make a financial contribution to the support costs, or whether they will purchase arms from this country, and thus help to maintain what is called full employment in the armament factories——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he will appreciate that this is not a Second Reading debate and that we are considerably more confined on Third Reading. I hope that he will relate his argument to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am aware of the principle of the Standing Order, the


traditions of the House, and the rules under Which this debate is taking place.
The question of how we are to find the money to support increased ground forces of B.A.O.R. is very relevant. Unless we find that money we cannot increase those forces. Only today, in Committee and on the Report stage of the Bill, we have been discussing how we can provide adequate remuneration for the men who are to be retained and recalled. That involves a considerable sum of money, and that money has to be found. Where are we to get it? Will it be from the pockets of the taxpayers, or will Western Germany make a full contribution towards the support costs? That matter has a very definite bearing on the subject under review.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether my right hon. Friend's arguments were not relevant points to put forward as reasons for rejecting the Bill—simply because it does not contain references to those important subjects?

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for supporting the case that I am endeavouring to put before the House.
The next question we have to ask is whether the Bill is necessary. I yield to nobody in my desire to see that our ground forces are adequate and capable of effective striking power, so that if they are engaged in a quarrel they can give a good account of themselves. No hon. Member on this side of the House, or on the other side—whatever his views or ideologies—would wish to have our forces engaged in war if they were inadequately served in the matter of equipment and training. If they have to enter into battle, let them at least have something to fight with—and, of course, something to fight for.
Therefore, we must consider whether the Bill is necessary. My submission, which I made in the Second Reading debate and repeat now, very briefly, is that merely to increase our forces in B.A.O.R. by 10,000 or 15,000 men will not make a substantial difference. As far as I can understand it, that is not the purpose of the Bill. As I understand, its purpose is to pick out men here and there to fill gaps, strictly on a military

basis, or so I hope. A great deal will depend on the commanding officers who decide the tasks that the men will have to perform.
Let us assume that the Bill is necessary, and that the men are required. The question then arises whether the Bill's proposals provide the fairest and most just method of raising the necessary numbers. I dislike conscription, and I have opposed it, although I had something to do with its introduction—it was inevitable in the circumstances, and, in any event, it was not my decision alone, but that of the Government—but it would have been fairer and more just to have imposed conscription, by extending the National Service Acts and bringing into the ambit of legislation all the men, apart from exemptions and deferments which are always necessary in the circumstances.
Then there would have been a measure of fairness. But to pick and choose—to tell men who have undertaken two years' service, "You will extend your service by another six months, irrespective of the circumstances"—is wrong. I know all about the hardship tribunals, and the rest, and I appreciate that it is always difficult to be fair in matters of this sort, but I think that it is wrong to bring back men who have left the Service and have entered into vocations, businesses, or trades in civilian life.
Is there anything in the Bill to which any credit can be attached? I believe there is. It is the "Ever-ready" proposal. I can understand that. It seems quite fair to ask men to volunteer and to undergo a period of training, providing them with a very remunerative incentive in the form of a bounty of £150 a year, plus other emoluments. If the Government had contented themselves with that provision I doubt whether anybody on this side of the House would have opposed the Bill. There is no reason why they should. Nobody takes exception to the voluntary principle. There is nothing exceptional or objectionable about volunteering, by way of the Territorial Army.
Here, I am speaking for myself, but I am not sure that I do not also speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who deserves the praise of the House for his industry in dealing


with these matters, and for his foresight and, incidentally, his hindsight. He has been correct about everything concerning the Army, except one particular—his demand that we should revert to conscription. I have told him on many occasions that, although that is technically admirable, it is politically very unpopular.
Of course, we know that that is so. I could understand that proposal, and the "Ever-readies" would be acceptable. But not the other, not the imposition of this hardship. There is no hardship about asking a man to volunteer for the Regular forces of the Territorial Army and to become a kind of Regular soldier, to be described as an Ever-ready".
The question I wish to ask is: will they really be effective? I am very worried about the training aspect. It is not, I think, entirely irrelevant. Speaking from my experience in the Service Departments, I was always worried about the inadequate training of National Service men and, indeed, of some of the Regular forces. On many occasions I discussed these matters with the different Chiefs of the Imperial General Staff with whom I was in cooperation. Going round the depots in Germany and elsewhere, it seemed to me that in many respects the training was casual and inadequate. If we are to have these men, they must be trained effectively and efficiently. They must be trained under proper guidance. Will these men be trained effectively?
I come to the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood regarding the Territorial Army. I have been critical of the Territorial Forces Auxiliary Association. I have never been critical of the officers in the Territorial Army. The other day there was a misunderstanding, when hon. Members opposite thought that I criticised the junior officers, and even the higher ranking officers. I never did anything of the kind. I referred to the Territorial Auxiliary Forces Association. I knew all these gentlemen. Nearly all of them were members of the House of Lords, or at least they were in my time—dukes and earls and all the rest of it, the whole aristocratic "bag of tricks." One could not be a "top sergeant" of the Territorial Auxiliary Forces Association——

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: We do not have "top sergeants."

Mr. Shinwell: I do not know whether the hon. Member, who is a great educational expert, knows much about these matters.

Sir K. Pickthorn: I know enough about them to have served in the Territorial Army—which is more than the right hon. Gentleman has done.

Mr. Shinwell: If I were you—not you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—I would not advise the hon. Member—the gallant Member now——

Sir K. Pickthorn: Certainly.

Mr. Shinwell: —to go into that subject. I have probably done more fighting on the dockside than he has done in his life—real fighting; and I have been shot at, too. So do not let us talk about that——

Sir K. Pickthorn: I have seen the right hon. Gentleman doing it.

Mr. Shinwell: Without being irrelevant, I will take on the hon. Gentleman at any time, in spite of my venerable age.
I was dealing with the question of the Territorial Auxiliary Forces Association. I am not prepared—I say this deliberately and with respect—to leave these "Ever-readies" and their destiny at the mercy of the gentlemen at the head of the Territorial Auxiliary Forces Association. Why should they be responsible for that administration? Let the task be imposed on the Army Council. That I would accept.
That is the reason why I oppose the Bill. I have never disguised my dislike of the Bill; of its unfairness and the imposition of hardship; its inadequacy; its cost and its ineffectiveness. At the same time, I am bound to say to the Minister, disliking the Bill as I do, that I only hope that it will turn out well.
Like many of my hon. Friends who are concerned about the nuclear deterrent, tests and the rest, who, some time ago, agreed that it was far better to build up our ground forces and make that a useful deterrent—if not an effective deterrent, a useful, so far as it can be useful, deterrent—I accept the need for this scheme as conditions are,


the uncertainty and disquietude in Euorpe and elsewhere. We need a measure of security, or, at any rate, the appearance of security. Therefore, I can only hope that this scheme will turn out well.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, let him be warned in time. If we discover—I cannot speak for other hon. Members—if I discover the slightest evidence of unnecessary hardship being imposed on any ex-Service man who is retained in the Service, or recalled to the Service, or any of the wives and families concerned, I shall have no hesitation in making things as difficult as I possibly can. I shall do so with the utmost good will to the right hon. Gentleman and respect for his integrity and ability. He can rely on me; I shall do everything I can to make things difficult for him and will try to induce my hon. Friends to do the same.
That is what I feel about the Bill. I am sorry that it came before us. It will be carried tonight, of course; the other side have their majority. There is some disquiet even over there about the Bill and its consequences, but we have to accept it. We are in the minority, but, if it should turn out as I suspect it may, it will not go too well with the Minister.

8.42 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I find myself in agreement with a certain amount of what has been said on the other side of the House this evening, but I feel that what has been said with such eloquence by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) would have carried much more weight if it had been said sooner—if it had been said five years ago.
I see the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) looking very virtuous. It is perfectly true that he and some of his more enlightened hon. Friends have been taking a much more sensible line. That does not relieve the Opposition Front Bench as a whole from the responsibility of having tagged along blindly behind the Government in the last five years. Even now that they are more enlightened they still do not carry

their enlightenment to its logical conclusion. They are still not prepared to accept the need for National Service—for conscription.
I had hopes of the right hon. Member for Easington. I thought at one moment that he was going to say that he was in favour or conscription. I am not sure that in the past he has not said that he was. He has come very near to it once or twice. If they want a proper Army, the only hon. Member opposite who can with a clear conscience vote against this Bill tonight is the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who consistently in the past five years has made clear exactly where he stands on this matter.
There is one good thing about the Bill. It marks irrevocably the collapse of the Government's defence policy of 1957. It marks the end of the five-year defence plan we were told so much about, but which we do not hear so much about now and it also marks its collapse. For five years the Government have been telling us that everything was going splendidly, that they had got the right target, were going to attain it and so on. Now suddenly, partly under pressure of circumstances and partly, as the right hon. Member for Easington suggested, pressure from our allies, I suspect that they have had to indulge in a delayed and, I hope, agonising reappraisal of their policy. They have had to rush through this panic, stop-gap Measure.
The trouble was that the target which they adopted in the first place was wrong. The right hon. Member for Easington spoke of the Government's failure with recruitment. I do not agree with him. I do not think that the Government have failed with recruitment. I think that they will get the number of men they set out to get, namely, 165,000 or thereabouts. I always thought that they would, because I have great faith in the Government actuaries, who established that figure in the first place. The trouble about that target is that it is not the number of men they needed; it is the number of men that everyone thought that, with any luck, they could get by voluntary recruiting. They were quite right about that, if about nothing else.
My right hon. Friends have put some of their most loyal supporters in a very


difficult spot, because many of my hon. Friends have taken the line, as have all hon. Members opposite, with one or two exceptions, that nothing could be more disastrous than selective service, that it would wreck the Army, that it was unnecessary and that they would in no circumstances support it. Now they are having to vote for selective service, because that is exactly what the Bill represents—and a very unfair form of selective service, too. They find themselves in almost as illogical a position as I, for, having pressed my right hon. Friends to introduce selective service, now that he has introduced it, I vote against it and they have to vote for it.
I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said when he opened the Third Reading debate. He said that this Measure would no doubt be politically more unpopular than outright National Service, and he is probably right. There is a certain poetic justice about this, because no doubt the chief reason for abolishing conscription in the first place was to win political popularity. It is ironic that they should be reduced to an expedient which is politically unpopular—and I think rightly so—and which incidentally is bad for morale and bad for recruiting, too.
It might be argued that those of us who want to see a good Army, an Army which is up to strength, a properly balanced Army, should help the Government out of their jam, in spite of all that has happened, by voting for this miserable Bill. We have been told—although I do not think that it carries much weight—that the Bill is designed to meet a special and specific crisis. We were told that by the Prime Minister. That crisis has been over for some months and, if one surveys the international situation, superficially one may say that we are in for a period during which tension will be somewhat relaxed. But that does not mean that this same crisis—or another crisis like it, or worse—will not occur again soon. We are facing a series of crises—a permanent crisis—which in all likelihood will last for the rest of our lives. That perhaps justifies all the arguments that the Bill was designed to meet one special emergency. Of course it is urgent that there should be enough troops in the Army and that they should be properly trained.
The Under-Secretary said that conscription would be inadequate militarily and he gave two reasons for that. The first was that it would not provide the Government with enough trained men quickly enough. That may be so, but the Government should have thought of that sooner, five years ago, when they made their original mistake of abolishing conscription without being certain that they could get the number of men they needed by voluntary recruiting.
The second reason my hon. Friend gave was that the Government would get more men than they needed if they were to introduce selective service. If they were to introduce a carefully worked out form of selective service, such as that existing in America, the story might be different. If they were properly to fulfil their obligations towards N.A.T.O., it would take a great many more men than they would get under the Bill—and I have no doubt that the American Government and our other allied Governments remind them of that from time to time.
That brings me on to my own attitude towards this Measure. No one is more anxious than I to see a properly manned and properly balanced Army and, for that reason, I might have been inclined to vote for the Bill on Third Reading. But I am against its stop-gap character, and that is what is particularly dangerous about it.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) said that the Bill showed that we really mean to do something about the matter. I feel bound to disagree with him, for it merely shows that we are in a jam and that we have had to yield to the pressure of events and the pressure from our allies. I do not think that it shows that we mean business.
The Bill will provide men to fill the gaps for a short time but, by its nature, the length of time during which it can do that is bound to be limited. Further, in order to keep men on for a further six months or to recall them, a disproportionate amount of disturbance will be caused to the private lives of the men as well as disturbance to the units concerned and the economic and social life of the country. I hope, as does


everyone, that the "Ever-readies" will be successful, although I cannot say that I feel very confident about that. They may be successful as long as there are a number of former National Service men to join them.
When the supply of trained men runs out, I wonder whether we really have the answer? I hope that the Measure will prove to be the answer and that, in the long term, there will be sufficient men. But I do not believe that in the sort of running emergency which we must face today either the reservists who are called up or the Territorials can be the ultimate answer. We need more men on the ground, and I think that they can be provided only by an adequate number of soldiers and, in turn, that adequate number of soldiers can be got only by conscription.

Sir J. Smyth: My hon. Friend talks of the good old days when we had a proper Army. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is always very frank about the fact that, when he had an Army of double the numbers we have today, we could not find even one brigade to go to Korea. At the time of Suez, as my hon. Friend knows very well, we had not anyone who could go quickly. Therefore, I do not think that we ought to believe that pure numbers of men necessarily make what my hon. Friend calls a proper Army.

Sir F. Maclean: As regards Suez, whatever view may be taken of it politically—we are getting rather away from the Bill—I think that no one will deny that, when the decision was taken to send a force to Suez, that force got there and acquitted itself extremely well in the task it was called upon to do and, indeed, could have acquitted itself better still if it had not been withdrawn.
What worries me about the Bill is that it will serve to mask the symptoms in the patient. It will serve to tide things over for two years until too late, until the situation is irreparable. It has been said before and will, no doubt, be said again—it certaintly will be said by me—that one cannot fill an empty Army as one can fill an empty bath simply by turning on the tap. This is what my right hon. Friend is finding now.
It is no good panicking. If one has done away with conscription, one cannot bring it back suddenly. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said earlier, men are suddenly needed. We need trained men. The Government have decided to freeze the men who are already in the Forces. In two years, when the usefulness of the Bill is exhausted, they will not even be able to do that. Then the situation really will be desperate. It is on that account, because of the ultimately disastrous effect which this masking of the symptoms, this sedative administered to the patient, will be likely to produce that I, for one, propose to vote against the Bill.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: Like the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), I am a victim of the illogicalities of the Bill. It creates for me, as for him, a personal dilemma. Ever since the lamentable White Paper of April, 1957, we have shared similar views in our assessment of the defence situation. We have foreseen a situation which has now arrived. Each of us in his own way has to face the personal obligations involved.
I abstained on Second Reading. At that point, I was asked to approve the principles on which the Bill was based. I carried my logic a stage further and voted against Clause 1, the Clause which, willy-nilly, without regard to personal circumstances, without regard to the honour involved in the Government's policy and its effect upon thousands of young men, keeps them for a further six months. I regarded that as an outrage and I voted against it. I still regard it as an outrage.
Coming to Clause 2, in which the Government seek power, in order to meet an emergency, to recall National Service men who have undergone an obligation imposed on them by, I think, the almost unanimous will of Parliament, I could not find it in my heart to vote against it. I abstained on Clause 2.
I argued then as I argued with myself before I became a Member of this House in 1939. I opposed the foreign policy of Neville Chamberlain. I thought that it was disastrous and that it would lead us to war and to the brink of defeat. But I thought that, having opposed the


foreign policy, I had to accept the need, not for a weakening of our defences, but for a strengthening of them. I was, therefore, in favour of conscription in 1939, and I am in favour of the principle of it now, although I deplore the shilly-shallying and muddling which has led to it in Clause 2 and the obligations which it imposes.
What should I do tonight? I think that on balance I should vote against the Third Reading, because I have to declare by my action that this is a bad Bill and that the Government who have imposed it ought to vacate their office and that a new administration should tackle 'le problems afresh. It is for those reasons that I shall take the action which I propose to take.
I could not understand the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). I have a great respect for him. I read his writings. I am always glad to talk to him and I accept him as an honourable and gallant gentleman in the truest sense of the words, who says what he thinks. However, I think that he strains loyalty to his party too much when he seeks to deny that the Bill extends a form of conscription by the most unfair, most muddle-headed and least efficient means from a military angle that it is possible for the human mind to devise. That is not because the Government are a Government of stupid men or of wicked men but because they are a Government of men who have lost touch with things and have been driven step by step by force of circumstances into the difficult position in which they find themselves. The reason for that as much an anything was the subborn, supine blindness of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
At least the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is logical. He never changes his mind. He is so masochistic that he has a sheer delight in banging his head against a brick wall. I hold in my hand a copy of a speech which he made in June, 1958, when he offered to lay ten-to-one that the Government would get sufficient recruits by the end of 1962 to get rid of National Service. I always take ten-to-one about an even money chance. I fell over myself to get a pound on as quick as the post could take it. It was

a case of ten pounds to one for me. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he would not be my banker but he would take the bet. I have had a great deal of correspondence with him, but I have not had the ten quid. I won the money all right and I offered to give it to the British Legion in my constituency. I hope that one day, perhaps in his will, the right hon. Gentleman will discharge his debt of honour.
What the right hon. Gentleman said in the same speech, in this forecast, this certainty which had to be a certainty for the narrowest of party political reasons, was this:
There will continue to be some difficulty in finding all the storekeepers, clerks, lorry drivers, hospital orderlies and others needed for administrative duties".
Now settlement day has arrived.
Is this something novel? Is this something invited by the Almighty for the special persecution of the British people? Is this something which has descended on us because, as apparently my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) thinks, we are shouldering the great burden of defence, facing our obligations and doing much more than all our other partners in N.A.T.O.? If so, this is pure chauvinistic bunk. Of course it is not true.
I have here a copy of the Annual Report of the Director of Selective Service in the United States. I have done the best I can to understand what they have done in that country. It is stated:
Contemporary selective service has been in existence almost continuously since 16th September, 1940. There was a lapse of about 15 months from 1st April, 1947 to 24th June, 1948".
The astonishing thing is that at no Presidential election has this matter been in issue. It is accepted as part of the modern way of life. I will not go into all the circumstances, but will quote one sentence:
The selective service system is essential to the maintenance of military strength.
That is what it says. Again:
Selective service is also indispensable in helping the Armed Forces to meet their needs for medical and dental officers.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that? What is to happen to the Royal Army Medical Corps and the


Royal Army Dental Corps when the last National Service man has gone? As for the powers in the Bill, either in Clause 1 or Clause 2, a levy en masse for calling up Tom, Dick and Harry, whether we want them or not, is out of date. In the modern world, whether it is in America, Britain, Germany, France or on either side of the Iron Curtain, if we want balanced military forces, we have to have some form of selective service.
The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood, in his anxiety to defend the Government, tried to make a case out of what happened to the Labour Government in 1950 about the brigade group going to Korea. But we produced the brigade group. The Korean war broke out on 25th June, and, starting from scratch, with tremendous commitments, and while our demobilisation was still not complete, we got together a brigade group which went into action and met its military obligations.

Sir J. Smyth: I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that if we had had to depend on that brigade group to get to Korea in time to save the situation it would have been weeks and almost months too late. It was only the action of the Americans that saved the situation in Korea. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is always much more frank about this than is the hon. Member for Dudley. The right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Defence at the time, and he does know what happened.

Mr. Wigg: Whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington was Minister of Defence or not, the facts are that in Korea the Americans were on their way out and had to come back. They had a much greater area when they came back, after those disastrous months at the end of the year, as their strength was built up.
So far as we were concerned, it was at the other end of the world. It was an obligation that was never on our list, and was never one of our commitments. We got together a brigade group. It went in, and discharged its military obligations. We did all that, of course, because we were not in the same position as we now are. Let the hon. and gallant Gentleman remember what the Prime

Minister said, and what the real indictment of the Government is. This is the Prime Minister, in the debate on the Queen's Speech on 31st October, 1961. He was dealing with this Bill, and he said:
In the first place, whatever the size of the Army next year, it will not, and I admit it, be properly balanced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 31st October, 1961; Vol. 648, c. 35.]
That is the fact. We have no medium artillery in Germany. The balance as between the various arms of the Services is out of balance, and the Bill will not bring it back. It will not even begin to do it. Clause 1 is an unfair expedient to which the Government are driven because they have no possible alternative but to break faith with these young men.
The Secretary of State told us that in this particular category he does not intend to play around with much more than 25,000 men. On that strength, it will give him between 170,000 and 180,000, which is suspiciously near the figure which most of us have always thought he would want to get a balanced force. Of course, there is another factor, and, here again, I have the greatest sympathy with the Secretary of State for War. When the present Secretary of State goes and another one comes, whether from this side of the House or wherever he comes from, he will be faced with the same dilemma.
The Army maimed itself—it had to—in July, 1957, when it reorganised. It carried through a major reorganisation. Nobody in the House knows better than the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood the effect upon the Army of the cutting down that followed that reorganisation. Other hon. Members may suggest that it is possible to cut a few battalions of infantry and to get rid of a few regiments of artillery and of the Royal Armoured Corps, but the hon. and gallant Member knows what this means to the Army. It means asking the Army to discharge its obligation with 60 battalions of the line whereas before the war it was 128 battalions plus the Indian Army.
If we are to depend on the Actuary's figure of hoping to be able to recruit about 165,000 men, we cannot sustain 60 battalions and at the same time service them. It cannot be done. Therefore—and this is the appalling dilemma


—what ought to be done is to carry through another reorganisation, which the Army would find it difficult to do.
I could sit down and write a paper, at least for my own edification, about the steps which should be taken. There should be a corps of infantry, of course, Again. I know the difficulties of carrying through such a step, particularly overnight and in the wake of a reorganisation which the Army thought would be the last only four years ago.
Again, the Government are hampered because at every stage, from the Prime Minister downwards—I think that the Secretary of State for War is an honourable exception—the country is not told the truth. There was a letter just a week ago from Colonel Henriques in The Times which aroused by sympathy because it was what I have been trying to say, that having spent vast sums of money we could not put a brigade group into Korea, and we could not do so now.
Today is 8th February. Hon. Members on all sides, can contrast the behaviour of the House of Commons. This afternoon, the Prime Minister came down to a packed House about the bomb. This is the defence subject. This is the item on the defence agenda that interests every hon. Member, on which almost every hon. Member is a great authority, the issue of being either for or against. This afternoon, the House was crowded.
Tonight we are discussing the other aspect of defence, perhaps the real aspect, the aspect of flesh and blood, the aspect which may be put to the test. We have a comparatively full House of 30 or 40 Members.

Mr. Shinwell: We had only six earlier.

Mr. Wigg: Yes, and yet this afternoon, if one had put to the Prime Minister, as I tried to do, the question that really matters—I should have thought that behind this afternoon's announcement one really gets down to it—nobody would have been interested.
My conception of what happened this afternoon is neither for nor against the bomb. I should like to know what really is behind it. I venture my guess. I believe that the Russians have taken the lead in the anti-missile field and that it will require the maximum effort on

the part of the West to overtake them. I believe that the last few vehicles which have been put into space within a few minutes of orbit have gone silent——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is getting rather wide of the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Wigg: I quite agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am trying to deal with the subject in a whole way. We had one aspect of it this afternoon, we have another aspect of it now. I certainly do not want to abuse your kindness, but I do not think it right that when we get sensational headlines, about which passions are aroused—whether one is for or against Wolverhampton Wanderers, West Bromwich Albion, Tottenham Hotspur or Chelsea—people rap each other's throats either across the Floor of the House or in a room upstairs, whereas when we come down to realities, when we can count on the fingers of our hands the things that really matter and the things that may be put to the test, the House of Commons is empty.
This has happened time and time again and this is the basic cause of our defence troubles. As Colonel Henriques said in his sober way in the columns of The Times, with our defence at present this means that at every stage we are becoming weaker and weaker. The House of Commons for political reasons does not want to admit it. The people in the country do not want to admit it because it is a disturbing thought. But, as Colonel Henriques has pointed out, and I have tried to point out, these facts are known to the Soviet Union and the Pentagon and in the quarters where power is assessed, and this means that the influence of this country which ought to be at the maximum at present does not count.
Does my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington really think that the United States Government will go on month after month inducting 10,000 and 13,000 and in April next 6,000 young Americans in perpetuity into the armed forces to defend us in Europe while Britain is the only country in N.A.T.O. that has no conscription? If he does, he is living in a dream world. Does he imagine that Germany will accept


eighteen months' service and provide twelve divisions while we have three skinny divisions which could not knock the skin off a rice pudding, and that they will not demand the position of influence which we now hold? This is the price of shilly-shallying and mucking about and arguing about atomic weapons when what we should have been looking at are the terms of service, infantry weapons and basic training. Those things are not here in this four-page essay and exercise in semantics which dodges every live issue and ends the way with a pious hope.
The country, having failed to get the men through the recruiting offices, is now committed to put its money on its reserve forces. But when the Army General Reserve has expired in 1964 and the part-time National Service men have gone in May, 1966, what happens them? For the steps now taken in the Bill cannot be repeated in two or three years' time. All the National Service men's obligations will have run out by 1966 and the only hope then is that the "Ever-readies" policy will have paid off, and then we shall have something like 60,000 men available as a reserve. It is not for me, and it would be an unkind and unfair thing to do, to denigrate in advance what the "Ever-readies" may do. As far as my voice is available, it is at the service of the Secretary of State to make the "Ever-readies" a success, and from the bottom of my heart I wish him well.
But what are the qualifications? These young men must have one years' service. They must have done one camp. They have accepted an annual bounty of £150 taxable and a £50 tax-free bounty if called up. Then they are to be taken overnight and put in the ranks with a Regular unit. I have had some of that, and I know what it is like to go from one unit to another, and so have hon. Members in all parts of the House. If people believe that it is possible to take men with this limited training and fit, say, 200 of them into an under-established regiment on the eve of active operations without affecting the regiment's efficiency, they are living in a dream world.
Then there is the other aspect that half of them will not be square pegs in

round holes. The Secretary of State said exactly the opposite. They will be the round pegs in the round holes which the Secretary of State wants, for half will be in administrative jobs. Thus we will have poor chaps, never having done their share of "square-bashing", knowing only one camp, suddenly picked up and put into key jobs on which the efficiency of an army on the edge of active operations will depend. I do not know what the War Office assessment is behind the scenes, but I can guess the assessments in the Pentagon and the Kremlin.
This is a short-term policy. The Government are borrowing from tomorrow as an act of expediency to help them out of their difficulties today. They have no follow-up policy—except. of course, that the Secretary of State hopes that he will be taking a holiday on the Riviera when the day of reckoning comes and that some poor mug from these benches will then be carrying the can, when we shall have Motions of censure three times a day because the Labour Government are failing to solve overnight the problems left by ten years of Tory rule.
That is the only hope behind this Measure. I have said before that the Prime Minister is the smartest operator I know. One thing certain in his policy at the present time is his absolute certainty that when the cheques are presented he will not be there. That is the cynical aspect of the Bill. It does not even pretend to deal with the basic problem which faces the country and the Army. At its best, this is a very thin sheet of political ice spread over troubled waters to get the Government out of an extremely difficult situation. What makes me so sad is that I believe that the margin between success and failure can be counted on the willingness of the Government and of the Opposition to tell the people the truth.
I have sufficient faith in democracy and in my fellow countrymen to believe that that applies not only to defence but to our economic life and to colonial and foreign affairs. Tell the people the truth and there is a chance that the Government will get an honest response on which they can act. But if the people are led from one piece of political expediency to another, what chance have


they of coming to the right conclusions? None at all.
I shall go into the Lobby against this Bill, although I realise that Clause 2 would have to be put through by some administration. But I have no faith in Clause 3 and the "Ever-readies" as a permanent solution. This is a short-term measure. I wish it well, for I am as disinterested now in these matters as I was when I first came to the House. I repeat that anything any of us can do to make this pay off will be worth doing, because it will save not only the Government but, what is more important, the country and the Army from having to face a very difficult problem in the future.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Kershaw: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that if the people are told the truth they will react in the necessary way, but I do not think that the Bill hides any reality of the military situation which it ought not to do. The first charge against it is that it is unfair. Some hon. Members have agreed that it is unfair, and I agree with that verdict myself. But that is not sufficient reason for the House to reject the Bill, because every form of conscription is unfair. Even the most universal National Service which it is reasonable to impose is bound to be unfair to some extent.
As has been said during the debate, the sort of National Service which we have had up to now has been no more than selective service, because so many exceptions were quite rightly made. Even National Service as it has existed until very recently has been an unfair system. It is certainly no fairer to exclude the exceptions than to make it complete and universal in the way that France does, not even allowing conscientious objectors to be exempted. None of us would think that fair.
Reference has been made to the unfairness of the pay for those who are recalled or retained compared with what is to be paid to Regulars. We ought to reflect that if we have conscription and a very large Army, the pay of those called up is bound to be lower, because to some extent the larger the Army, the poorer the pay, as nowadays countries cannot afford to pay armies very much. What would be very unfair would be

to take soldiers who were not needed for military purposes merely in order to seem fair to those who were needed. I agree that it is fairest to take the fewest number and fairest to take the best-trained, because in that way they are kept for a shorter period, as they are not required for long training.
I have already mentioned the question of pay and hon. Members have asked whether it is fair to pay retained and recalled National Service men at the three-year Regular rate. This is a difficult decision. I shall not be too dogmatic about it, but I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) say that the three-year men would not mind too much if National Service men received more than they did. I would have thought that as a trade union leader he would have had the theory of comparability of pay very much in his mind. I think that they would mind and that this is a consideration to which my right hon. Friend and the House ought to pay attention. While the matter is obviously not beyond doubt, the blow to the morale of the three-year men is certainly a factor to which not enough attention has been given during our debates.
Several hon. Members have said, and the hon. Member for Dudley has repeated it, that the measures which the Government are taking are in some way almost a breach of contract with those who were led to believe that they were to serve for two years and who are now to be condemned to serve for two years and six months. However, one could say with equal logic that any conscription is a breach of contract with the nation. But that is not the contract. The contract between the Government and the people is that the Government should take the necessary steps, and take them in time, to defend the country properly.
It does not matter whether their actions are popular or not. There can be differences of opinion about whether conscription would be more or less popular than the Bill. As a matter of fact, I think that the House might be surprised at the result if we ever had to make the choice. But that does not make any difference. It is the Government's duty, which they cannot shuffle on to anyone else, and it is that duty which they are now trying to discharge.
It has also been asked why we alone find it necessary to take these measures. But it is not only ourselves who are altering the terms of military service and arrangements. Germany has added six months to its terms of service, incidentally with the agreement of the Socialists in the Bundestag, and in France and the United States much more use is made of reservists who are recalled to the colours when required. It might be thought that that is extremely unfair because some are recalled and some are not according to qualifications. In passing, I may say that the eulogies which are bestowed on the United States system of selective service are not quite so justified as might be thought, because 83 per cent. of the United States Army is volunteer, as is all of the Marine Corps, the Navy and the Air Force. Therefore, the United States selective service impinges on very few people.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member ought to go to the United States and have a course on this subject. It is the genius of that system that there are no permanent deferments, so that the American authorities get a high level of voluntary recruiting just because of the existence of selective service.

Mr. Kershaw: I agree that selective service is a factor in voluntary recruitment, but a volunteer is a volunteer, so that the number of people who go into the American Army very much against their will is nothing like as great as has been suggested.
It is not odd that each country should have a different system for its own reserves and terms of service. Each of us has different problems. Those of us who know it much admire the Swiss system of the national levy, but it would be utterly unsuitable to this country, which is a maritime and imperial country. It would not work at all here. It would not solve any of the problems which we have been discussing. I do not believe that large armies, suitable for continental Powers, are suitable or necessary for us.
The hon. Member for Islington, North made one or two comments about Western European Union about which I would like to say a few words. He said that I had said that we had 64,000

men in Germany, but I was not adding up the N.A.A.F.I. girls in that figure. I included the Tactical Air Force and the Berlin troops, who are the best equipped of all. To say that we are handing over our front in Germany because we do not have the troops to defend it, is by no means the whole truth.
The British Army in Germany is sitting on the obvious corridor of advance from the other side. It is Flanked on the left by much more defensible country and in the south by the hilly country in the middle of Germany, where far more troops are congregated. It has been a matter of international jealousy that America and Germany have not hitherto been willing to take over part of this dangerous front in Germany.
To complete his question, the hon. Member for Islington, North ought to have said that only we have undertaken the obligation to keep a stated number of troops in Germany. Some play was made of the fact that France has brought back two divisions from Algeria, but they are weak in numbers and badly equipped and, anyway, are not located on the central front. Our obligation, which is beyond the obligations which our allies have taken up, ought not to be forgotten, but I take this opportunity of repeating that to keep large numbers of United Kingdom troops in Germany for reasons other than military is wrong. It might lead to military mistakes which would cost us very dear in influence in other parts of the world where the military danger is much more great than it is in Europe today.
Turning to the permanent part of the Bill, dealing with "Ever-readies", I, like every other speaker on Third Reading, welcome it. I agree that there is the problem of training, but, from my knowledge of the Territorial Army, I think that it can be overcome. The problem, to which I have already alluded, is the danger of two categories of troops serving in the Territorial Army, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will do what he can to avoid that. I believe that his figure of about one-third of "Ever-ready" troops in any Territorial unit is too high and makes it more difficult to run it, but I am sure that it will do good for the morale of the


Territorial Army to have "Ever-readies" amongst it.
The Territorial Army will be delighted to train for war rather than Civil Defence and as disaster squads, but it must be prepared to do that as part of its training as well. The Regular Army, during the last few years, has spent much of its time running schools, soup kitchens, acting as wardens and doing other very unmilitary duties. Unless the Territorial Army can have the incentive to train for what interests it, it will not be available to undertake these other duties as well, and very useful duties they are.
Since the Secretary of State came to the War Office we have seen a steady rise in the number of Regular troops. We have seen a rise in the morale and certainly in the efficiency and equipment of the British Army.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be the first to pay tribute to his predecessors, for this was not accomplished overnight. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has been responsible for some of this work, and he is entitled to take credit for what has been done. The Bill will not shame my right hon. Friend in any way. I think that when it has been worked out and we see it in practical operation, we will find that it has been good for the British Army.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Paget: This Bill has not had a very happy passage. When it was introduced, it received the most savage criticism that I have ever heard of a Government Measure by Privy Councillors on the Government side. We had the speeches of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), and the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), and the criticisms, which have been repeated today, of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who was formerly Under-Secretary of State for War. Certainly the reputation of the Bill has not improved as it has gone through its various stages.
The more the House has seen of the Bill, the less it has liked it. Indeed, the only consistent support which the right hon. Gentleman has received is that of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) who has risen on every conceivable occasion, however impossible

the position of the Government, to give loyal support from that signal quarter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get his reward, but on this I am not too optimistic, because in politics there is more rejoicing and more reward for the lost sheep that returns than for the ninety and nine which remain straight and go into the Division Lobby throughout.

Mr. Kershaw: If I had known that the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to indulge in polemics I should not have allowed him 35 minutes in which to speak. What does he propose to say in the time at his disposal? He has done a lot of talking during our discussions on the Bill.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Gentleman will find out if he waits a moment.
The Bill is a result of an idea of the Prime Minister. It is the result of an idea born at the time of Suez. After Suez the right hon. Gentleman did not think much of armies. He did not think that the Army was much good in modern circumstances, so he decided that it should be cut down; that it should be the old professional Army which he remembered from his Edwardian days; and, above all—because, remember that this began as an economy move—that it should be a cheap Army.
The right hon. Gentleman did not act on advice, because all the advice that he received was against it. He had the resignation of Viscount Head. All the advice from the War Office was against it. He did not act on a review of the commitments of the Army. This is the extraordinary thing for, once the decision was blindly taken to halve the Army, nobody considered that there might be a consequent necessity to reduce the Army's tasks. The commitment was not considered, nor was there reallocation amongst the Services. Above all, there were no consultations with our allies or the Commonwealth. Indeed, it is difficult to realise the utter frivolity with which decisions are taken by the Prime Minister, and have been taken by the Government. But that is the manner in which this decision was taken.
The present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations was given the task. He was the almost ideal instrument. He combined both the will and


ignorance that was necessary. His august father-in-law once described him as having a mind like a rat-trap. It was an extremely good description, because it is a powerful but unresilient mind. It fastened on to the proposition that conscription was to go and that there was to be a professional Army. The tasks were not considered; the needs were not considered, and the commitments were not considered. Not even our treaty obligations were considered. Instead, the actuaries were consulted.
And remember this: the decision to abolish conscription was taken before the actuaries were consulted. It was taken even before the sum was done, and before anybody knew what the answer would be. That is the way the Government took their decision, and we are now reaping the consequences. The actuaries arrived at a figure of 160,000, and so 160,000, plus the big bangs—the atomic weapons which were to be a substitute for troops—was decided upon. The Army has always ignored that figure.
Since then, a whole series of figures has been given. There was the figure of 165,000. I do not know where that came from. It was merely 5,000 added to the actuaries' figure, and was fought for by the then Secretary of State for War. In 1959, because recruitment had taken an upward turn, out came the figure of 180,000. The Hull Committee then considered the matter and, for the first time—long after the decision was originally taken—did so in terms of the commitments and tasks that the Army would be required to undertake. The Hull Committee came out with a figure of 200,000, on the basis that only 45,000 would be required for B.A.O.R.—which we know is not correct—and of 220,000 in other conditions. I know of no reason to depart from that idea of 220,000, given our present commitments.
Despite all this, as late as June, 1960, the present Minister for Commonwealth Relations was saying that the Government had never said that they needed 180,000; that the target set in the 1958 White Paper was 165,000, and that our target for our future Regular Army remained unchanged, at 165,000. But the target never was 165,000. That was a figure which had never existed anywhere except in the rigid mind of the right hon.

Gentleman, The reorganisation of the Army was not based upon a figure of 165,000; it was based upon a figure of 182,000. The figure of 165,000 has never been anything else than a fictitious one.
Next April, when the Bill is to be brought into operation, the figure will be about 184,000. Is that pure coincidence? The Berlin crisis has nothing to do with the Bill. In fact, since the war we have been so far from a crisis. This is the first time since the war that we have not one man on active service. In Berlin we are performing little more than half of our treaty obligations which existed before conscription was abolished and which exist now. We are performing little more than half, and nobody anticipated that the situation would get better. Every indication was that it surely must get worse.
This Bill is designed to hold the figure of 182,000. That is how it works. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) pointed that out during the Second Reading debate. Let us look at the figures. When this legislation comes into operation—when the men who otherwise would be going out are impressed; that is, when the Army reaches roughly 184,000—we shall have about 159,000 Regulars and about 25,000 National Service men. Of these, enough will be kept to keep the figure at roughly 182,000. If recruiting goes on as is forecast, in January, 1963, the Regulars will come up to the 165,000 figure. Then this Bill will be required to keep the figure up to 182,000. And so it will go on, until the Regular recruitment, as anticipated, somewhere about the begining of 1965, reaches 182,000, which is the object of this exercise.
This is being done in the unfairest possible way. The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) said that he would not call this conscription. Nor would I. The expression conscription "gives the impression of an element of universality; some sort of sense of fairness to deal with a national crisis. This is not conscription—this is press-ganging. This is just the arbitrary seizing of a small body of men who are helpless, and utterly ignoring their rights because they are few. Why is it being done in this way? Because the political figure was 165,000, but the Army figure was 182,000. It is


because of the political refusal to face what had been the military decision——

Sir F. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman calls 182,000 the military figure, but surely is the political figure, too. The Army used it for purposes of reorganisation. It was never a really serious military target.

Mr. Paget: I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am saying that for this purpose—and I will come to its adequacy—the Army was reorganised at 182,000. But this Bill is designed to keep the figure at 182,000. If the political figure had been 182,000, we should have postponed the abolition of conscription and tapered it off to the point where conscription stopped with the Regular Army at 182,000, with something to spare. That is what would have been done, if the political figure had been the same as the figure of the military reorganisation. Because it was not; because lip-service was still being paid to the political figure of 165,000, upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations had based his defence policy and to which the Government were committed; because those two figures were never brought into relation, this unjust method has been adopted. That is the sole reason for it. There is no other reason.
Under this system the burden is cast on those who have already done most and those who have sacrificed most. At this end-period of conscription we have in the Army a higher proportion than ever before of people who have postponed their National Service and made sacrifices of earning capacity in order to acquire qualifications for greater earning capacity in future. It is that greater earning capacity which the Government are receiving on the cheap. These very men who have prepared themselves for careers are being heaved out of those careers in order to make good the mistake—the deliberate political posture—of the Minister of Defence in the adoption of this policy.
In spite of the fact that this injustice is so utterly the fault of this Government, so unnecessary, such a wrong way to do it, such as unjust way to do it, there has been a consistent refusal thoughout these proceedings to do anything what-

ever to mitigate the injustice, or even to remove the anxiety from groups subject to recall who, in all human probability, will not be recalled without Proclamation. There is refusal even to pay these men who are being recalled the same amount as the man in the next bed, the Regular doing the same job, will be receiving. We have a bogus figure based on a non-existent engagement adopted in order to pay them less than the man in the next bed doing the same job during this period. There is this utter disregard of justice or any attempt to mitigate injustice.
After all this, will it work? First, we shall have in the two years referred to the pressed-man period. Almost the sole reason why I have supported going over to a professional Army is precisely that I do not believe a professional and a pressed man mix. I believe the whole morale of a force is injured by the man who has over his bed a calendar on which each day is marked off and counted to the time when he will get out. Over and above that—because in a sense conscription was regarded as fair—these men are being retained and arbitrarily heaved back. These men whose hopes and expectations have been unjustly interfered with and who are to be retained in the forces will have a bitter grievance against the Army. That will not do the Army any good. I do not believe it will work even in the short run.
How will the "Ever-ready" period work, the period when we run out of pressed men? A number of people have cast doubt on that. Of course we all hope that it will work. But the more I see of it, the more I think about it, the more I discuss it, the less likely do I think it is to work. Let us look first at the effect on the Territorials. The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood said that it would be a shot in the arm for the Territorials. It is more likely to be a shot in the head. Let us see what the position will be.
The Territorial Army is a very strange and a very unusual thing. It is fashionable—I do not know why—to jeer at amateurism, but if I had to take one single quality from the English genius which I think is the most peculiar to the British people and probably the most important, it would be the talent for


amateurism. The greatest part of our justice is conducted by amateurs. Out local government is conducted by amateurs. Here, in the House, we are not far from being amateurs. The real expression of this genius for amateurism finds its expression in the Territorial Army. The number of people who make the Territorial Army their hobby and the main interest in their lives, and the degree to which they devote themselves to it, and the sense of proprietorship which they feel for a unit, is remarkable.
We are to insert into this unit a number of people who have no real interest in the unit because they will never serve in it. Long before the Territorial battalion can be embodied, these men will have been heaved out. That is why they are there; that is the reason for the "Ever-readies". In the twilight period, long before embodiment, they will have gone.
The Territorials know that when the day comes for which all these preparations have been made, these men will lot be there, and the men themselves know that they will not be there; and neither has an interest in the other. If these men are not supplementary to the establishment of a Territorial unit, then by their extraction at the vital period they will leave the Territorials inefficient in the very job for which they were trained. The Territorials will not like or wish for people who will leave them—and who will leave gaps which cannot be filled at the critical time. I cannot believe that this is good for the Territorial Army or that it will work or that either of these two groups will like the other or be of much use to the other.
Let us look at the effect on the Regulars. When we have National Service men who have done two years or maybe even two and a half years on whom to draw, I concede that these men may be of value; they will be of value precisely because they were trained, if not in the unit, at least in a similar unit to that into which they will be drawn back. But when this period is over and when we are no longer drawing on National Service men, when instead we are drawing on men who perhaps have done a fortnight's camp and a few

drills, what use will they be if they are suddenly pushed into key jobs in Regular units? If these men are to be any good at all, they should be withdrawn and separated from the Territorial Army. These are men who ought to be training with, and be attached to, at least the type of unit in which they will serve, doing the job, or at least the type of job, for which they will be required. Unless they are properly trained they will be of little value. Anyway, will they even be there?
The system to be adopted is precisely to make this attractive in inverse proportion to the requirement. A retainer of £150 a year is very nice—as long as one is not called upon. It is nice for the first year and it may be all right for the second, but will it remain all right when the prospect of being called up comes along; of actually having to do the six months? What will happen in 1966 when all the reliance may be on the "Ever-readies?" Is it attractive for the right man? For the man earning £10 or £12 a week another £3 as a retainer is attractive, but we have been told that specialists are required. Do the Government think that another £3 will be attractive to doctors, with the prospect of being heaved out of their activities for six months of the year? Will it be attractive to radar technicians and men earning £20 or £30 a week?
Here is a form of incentive which is attractive at the time—when it is not wanted and for the men who are not wanted. It will not be very attractive when it is wanted for the men who are wanted. In any case, I do not think that it will work. I hope that I am wrong. It seems that the wrong sort of training is contemplated and that the inducement is all wrong.
Even if it works and gives us the 182,000 men for which it is designed, will it be sufficient to meet our existing commitments? At the beginning of this year we had 208,000 men, all trained, because every one of them had been in for over twelve months. Despite that, we found that there was under-establishment everywhere. We found "Spear-point" and its tanks with just a driver, one man representing sections and sections representing platoons. It was a humiliating experience. May I cite the case of my father's old regiment, the


2nd Battalion Scots Guards? Is that up to establishment? Are there 800 men there? Is it even up to the low establishment introduced to fit the figure of 635, which was rejected after the Cyprus experience as being quite inadequate? Is it up to 500? Is it 400, 300, or even 200? How many battalions are under 200 today? I hope that we can be given the answers to these questions.
Will this solve the problem of sections masquerading as platoons, as platoons standing in for companies and undersized companies mustering as battalions? That is the position with 208,000 men. By what magic, with 30,000 less, do we deal with these problems, which are so patent? Will our commitments stay as conveniently low as they are at the moment? Will N.A.T.O. continue to be satisfied with 51,000 men from us, scarcely more than half our treaty obligation?
Since July, the Americans have put in 40,000 more men and eight more squadrons, 250 planes and six more divisions at the ready. The French are coming back from Algeria, realising the need, and two more divisions are coming. The Germans have stepped up their period of conscription and their divisions are coming forward. It is realised that S.A.C. cannot hold Europe but it must be held on the ground. When all our allies are exceeding their treaty obligations, how long will they tolerate our falling so short of ours? How far, and for how long, do we have to stay behind, let us say, the Italians? The right hon. Gentleman's Government talks about going into Europe. At what sort of bargain-basement price does he think they will get there if they are falling short of these obligations?
Will the Bill solve these problems? I do not for one moment believe that conscription is the answer. What we must decide is whether we are a European or a world Power. We have 40,000 men at the moment spread out in bases throughout the world acting as auxiliary policemen. There are five battalions in Hong Kong because we have not prepared a gendarmerie.
There is nothing new in this. For five years, I have been urging, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has been urging, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee,

West (Mr. Strachey) has been urging that our commitments must be adjusted to our strength. The 130,000 men in the Royal Air Force cannot be occupied principally in preparing to deliver an independent nuclear deterrent the use of which is almost inconceivable. The 88,000 men in the Navy are not properly occupied trying to convoy ships into ports which will not exist. Four hundred and ten thousand professionals rationally used in a unified Service can provide for our real needs and fulfil our treaty obligations to N.A.T.O. I believe that that can be done, but it can be done only by a real organisation.
We shall do what is necessary and proper to discharge our responsibilities. That we shall do. But this Government
have never had any kind of system, right or wrong, but only invented occasionally some miserable tale for the day, in order meanly to sneak out of difficulties into which they had proudly strutted.
Those were the words used by Burke of Lord North's Government. They are words equally appropriate to this.
This is a shoddy, dishonest and unjust Bill. Above all, it is a feckless Measure which solves nothing. We shall have no hesitation in voting against it.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in the middle of his gusty speech—[An HON. MEMBER: "A good one, anyway."]—I did not say that it was a bad one: I said "gusty" speech—said that it was now a fashion to sneer at the amateurs, Nobody would sneer at the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was very professional all the way through his speech, getting more so towards the end of his peroration. I had an idea that he would have been just as effective and just as good if he had been briefed to defend the Bill.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made a very great point about trying to persuade the House that this Measure had been brought before us so that we could retain about 182,000 in the Army. He produced all sorts of figures, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) produced a different set of figures, and we have had two or three other sets of figures, to try to show that what is being done in the Bill is not being done for the


purpose of which I told the House, but to try to play the numbers.
Let me take the hon. and learned Gentleman's configuration. He referred to a figure of 165,000 plus 15,000. I have given the figure of 15,000 to be retained as the nearest estimate that I can give of the number that we may have to keep back, but I have made it perfectly clear that it may be less than that or it may be more than that. The fact is that if it is 15,000, it is 15,000 over the whole period of six months. Therefore, it is no good trying to add 15,000 to 165,000 and getting 182,000.
This is the way in which the Opposition think that they can persuade the House and the country that it is for reasons other than those which I have given that the Bill has been introduced. The Bill has been introduced for one reason only, namely, so that we may carry out our obligations and may safeguard our position in case recruiting for the Regular Army does not go as well as I hope it will go, or in case the situation in Europe or in the world deteriorates. I believe that they are perfectly honourable reasons for bringing this Measure before the House.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton, again being carried away with his argument, said at the beginning and forgot it later—the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) made the same point in an interesting speech—how could we try to defend the Bill if there was a crisis, or how could we say that we were producing it because of the difficulties in Berlin? The fact remains that there is a crisis in Europe. The hon. and learned Member produced the answer himself, because he gave a whole list of the things which the Americans, the French and everyone else were doing. What were they doing them for if it was not because of the situation in Europe?

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose——

Mr. Profumo: The hon. and learned Gentleman has left me with only twenty minutes in which to make my speech. Let me finish my argument.
The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said that he would like to know the facts about numbers in

Europe. He went on to say that we were probably doing much more than we have been given credit for and wished to know exactly what the French were doing. We have put further troops into Europe. He asked why it was that, if this was such an important Measure, we do not propose to do anything about it until April. It is because the troop movements which we have carried out from here to B.A.O.R. will manage to hold the situation at 51,000 until the beginning of April. Only then will the numbers begin to run down.
We are doing our share in Europe. We have obligations not only in Europe. They go wider than Europe. They are world-wide, and we must continue to carry them out. That is one of the reasons why we have produced this Measure. It is because of the sudden impact of a crisis in Europe at a time when our recruiting figures are mounting and the run-out is going at full speed that we must take steps to safeguard the situation.
Now that our discussions are drawing to a close, I should like to say this. I am glad to see that more hon. Members are now coming into the Chamber, but throughout the Committee and Report stages there has been only a handful of hon. Members on both sides present. Those who have been here have shown a real and genuine interest in the Bill and I pay tribute to them for that.
Our discussions may have been prolonged, but, at all events, they have shown that all hon. Members wish to safeguard in every possible way the men who will be kept back in the Army or those who might be called back. They wish to protect the rights of those who may be affected by the Bill. I have listened to the arguments of hon. Members with close attention, and I assure them that if I have not been able to accept Amendments it has been for one reason and one reason only.
Despite what some hon. Members opposite have suggested, we did think the Bill out carefully before we brought it to the House. We thought about the difficulties, troubles, privations and hardships which would be caused, and we put into the Bill every provision we could to protect those affected by it commensurate with the objects of the Bill.
In the time at my disposal I should now like to comment on some of the Clauses. I wish to repeat a pledge which I have given before. It is that no one will be retained under Clause 1 who is not strictly needed for military purposes. The provisions of this Clause relate to our present commitments to N.A.T.O. and have nothing whatever to do with our recruiting campaign, which, I am happy to tell the House, has gathered momentum. I was pleased to hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire say that we would reach our target. There was a time when Members on both sides of the House said that we would never reach our target. Now, the cry is that when we do reach the target it will not be enough. Let us first reach the target and discuss the second part of the criticism afterwards.

Sir F. Maclean: I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that I have always said that I thought we should reach the target, and have always said that I thought it was insufficient.

Mr. Profumo: I know that my hon. Friend has said so, unlike other hon. Members, who have been sniping at us, saying that we should not reach the target. I hope and believe that we shall be there or thereabouts.
The provisions of Clause 1 relate to our commitments to N.A.T.O. The hon. Member for Islington, North tried to suggest that the announcement which appeared in the newspapers about the possibility that a German commander would succeed General Cassels had something to do with the fact that our numbers were not right and that we were unable to carry out our commitments.
The House must know that the Northern Army Group is responsible to N.A.T.O. for the defence of the northern sector of the East-West German border. It is composed of army units from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the Federal Republic, Canada and Belgium, and the Commander has always been British. Any plans to change the dispositions in the Allied Command, Europe, would primarily be a matter for the Supreme Allied Commander, if he were to consider that he could improve N.A.T.O.'s capacity to carry out the task assigned to the forces concerned.
I know of no firm plan to this end at present, although deployment plans are, of course, always being reviewed by N.A.T.O., and the gradual increase in the Federal German Army to meet N.A.T.O. requirements must clearly, eventually, lead to some re-examination of the deployment of forces in Germany. I repeat that no decision has been taken either on redeployment or about a successor to General Cassels, German or anyone else, and Her Majesty's Government would, of course, be consulted in the first place before anything happened.
If our present commitments to N.A.T.O. were to change or if the position in Europe were materially to alter, the provisions of Clause 1 which are permissive, would certainly be reexamined by Her Majesty's Government, but, as things are, I shall have to operate this power, although I cannot at present foresee to what extent, nor I am afraid can I tell the House with any honesty what the categories would be which we felt we had to hold back. These would depend on shortages at the time, month by month, when we have to hold them back.
I can and will give an indication, if the House wishes, of the costs of the various sections of this Bill, for which I have been asked all the way through the various debates. To take Clause 1, for every thousand retained men whom we have to keep for six months, it will cost £330,000. Under Clause 2, where we are talking about recalled men, it will cost £350,000 for every thousand of those recalled for six months, and this additional cost arises because recalled men are to be given a £20 gratuity. In so far as the "Ever-readies" are concerned, every thousand of them will cost about £250,000 in a full year. That is our rough estimate, but the House has been anxious to ascertain to what extent we shall be involved in costs.
I am anxious to reduce hardship as much as possible. I have said so again and again on all the proceedings of the Bill. That is why I have taken special measures—and they are measures which hon. Members opposite did not see fit to take when similar cases occurred and they had to extend National Service in 1950. I am not making a party point; I hope that the hon. Member for Dudley knows me better than that. I am trying


to persuade the House that we have gone as far as we can to consider the special hardships which will fall on people under both Clauses 1 and 2.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Will the administrative practices under the National Service Act, 1948, and under the Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves Act, 1950, applying to conscientious objectors, be maintained under the Bill?

Mr. Profumo: The existing administrative practice and arrangements for conscientious objectors will continue to hold good for all those who are involved in the Bill.
The Advisory Committee will bring sympathy, insight and judgment to these problems. The Committee, whose composition I announced to the House the other day, is now, I aim glad to say, ready to operate. I shall see all the members of the Committee next week and we will talk about how they will operate. The moment that cases begin to come, the Advisory Committee on Hardship will be ready to start its work. I hope that the House will allow me to take this opportunity of expressing at least the thanks of the Government, shared, I believe, by hon. Members on both sides of the House, for the public spirited action of its members in agreeing to come forward and serve on a committee which will necessitate a considerable amount of time and detail.
Some hon. Members, inadvertently, have criticised the Chairman of the Committee, General Denning. They have said that he is a general and is connected with S.S.A.F.A. He retired from the Army sometime ago after a distinguished career. As he is Chairman of the whole S.S.A.F.A. organisation, it seemed to my colleagues and me that there was no one better suited to head the new Advisory Committee to consider the hardship of men who were to be retained or recalled to the forces. I should like to pay tribute to General Denning and his colleagues for the work that they will do.
I was glad that hon. Members opposite have at least given a good reception within the limits at their disposal for our plans to try to deal with the compassionate cases. I was extremely grate-

ful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) for his kindly commendation during the course of his interesting speech.
Clause 2 covers a somewhat more remote contingency. As I said on Second Reading, I doubt whether we shall need to use these powers, if we need to use them at all, before next year. As I recognise that individual disruption would be even greater under Clause 2 than under Clause 1, since it will affect men who have already established themselves in civil life and who have commitments to themselves, to their families and to the community, I intend to see that these powers are used as sparingly as possible, if they are ever used at all. I recognise that, even more than Clause 1, Clause 2 is bound to leave uncertainty hanging over the part-time National Service men. This point has been made by many hon. Members in our debates.
If, however, we did not make these provisions, we would be much more likely to have to resort one day, if tension rose, to declaring a national emergency. This is one of the things we wish to avoid. Hitherto, we have been impeded in the use of our reserve forces by not being able to use them unless we declare a state of imminent national danger, with all that goes with it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken about this and considered it during the summer. Hon. Members know quite well the implications of declaring a national emergency. We are looking to periods in the time ahead when there may be increased tension and when, by calling up men to strengthen the deterrent of our manpower, we may be able to avoid a situation of national emergency, which often leads to an international emergency.
If we did not take this action, we would be much more likely to have to declare national emergencies from time to time. This would affect all part-time National Service men, since they are all liable to be recalled at whim without any sort of gratuity if a national emergency is declared and the reserves have to be called up.
I wish that I could predict the chances of our exercising these powers, but I cannot do so. I can give the House no prediction of what we might have to do,


or in what circumstances we might have to call these men up. It could be no more than crystal-gazing and it would be wrong for me to indulge in that.
I have been encouraged by the way that the House has looked favourably at the creation of the "Ever-readies". I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) at least gave them his limited blessing. He was doubtful, as some hon. Members are, whether we shall be able to make a go of this.
I should like to say a word about our plans for recruiting "Ever-readies". I shall start recruiting as soon as the Bill becomes law. I shall have two lots of pamphlets. One will be circulated widely to employers, telling them what the "Ever-readies" are intended to do, the conditions under which they might have to be recalled and, generally speaking, appealing to employers to allow their employees to join and become "Ever-readies".
Another set of pamphlets will go round and will be widely distributed among the Territorial Army and among the reserve people, the part-time National Service reserves. This pamphlet will have a section for the wives and will explain to them what their rights are under this scheme. I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) would like that and would not wish me to leave them out. This is to try and tell the wives what their rights are if their husbands are called up, and it will show the "Ever-readies" what their terms of service are. I am absolutely convinced that this is something which will catch on and serve our nation well.
As to training, I have already said in Committee that it is my belief that we shall have enough equipment to train these "Ever-readies" perfectly well. The Territorial Army does very

much more training than some hon. Members give it credit for and I believe that where we have not the equipment we need it will be perfectly all right to train the "Ever-readies" with sections of the Regular Army. As to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that the Territorial Army is the wrong peg on which to hang this, if he fears that the Territorial Army will not like it he need not bother any more about that. From the very inception of this scheme I have taken the Territorial Army Council into consultation and throughout it has given me its blessing and has helped me and my colleagues to arrange it.

If I may adapt a famous phrase, when a man knows he is about to be guillotined it concentrates the mind wonderfully. I realise that the Bill may not be very popular, but I am convinced that it is necessary. I am encouraged by the polite things which hon. Members have said about the way in which the War Office treats these hardship cases. It is no tribute to me and my Ministerial colleagues. It is a tribute to the permanent officials of the Department, and the Army, who have done this for a long time and will continue to do it. The Bill will not be popular but if it serves its purpose it will turn out to be a good Measure and in that spirit I ask the House to speed it on its way.

Mr. Paget: Will we be told the strength of the Scots Guards?

Mr. Profumo: If the hon. and learned Member does not know and wishes to know the strength of his father's old unit, I will tell him after the debate.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 129.

Division No. 80.]
AYES
[10.28 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bishop, F. P.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Aitken, W. T.
Black, Sir Cyril
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bossom, Clive
Chataway, Christopher


Allason, James
Bourne-Arton, A.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Box, Donald
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Barber, Anthony
Boyle, Sir Edward
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Barter, John
Brewis, John
Cleaver, Leonard


Batsford, Brian
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, Sir Walter
Cole, Norman


Berkeley, Humphry
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Collard, Richard


Biffen, John
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Cooper, A. E.


Biggs-Davison, John
Buck, Antony
Costain, A. P.


Bingham, R. M.
Campbell, sir David (Belfast, s.)
Coulson, Michael




Craddock, Sir Beresford
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roots, William


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Russell, Ronald


Curran, Charles
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Seymour, Leslie


Dance, James
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kirk, Peter
Shepherd, William


Deedes, W. F.
Leavey, J. A.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Doughty, Charles
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Drayson, G. B.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Stevens, Geoffrey


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Stodart, J. A.


Emery, Peter
Loveys, Walter H.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McLaren, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Errington, Sir Eric
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tapsell, Peter


Farr, John
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Finlay, Graeme
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Teeling, Sir William


Fisher, Nigel
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Eraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gammans, Lady
Marshall, Douglas
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gardner, Edward
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Gilmour, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Mills, Stratum
Turner, Colin


Goodhart, Philip
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Goodhow, Victor
Neave, Alrey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Vane, W. M. F.


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Green, Alan
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gresham Cooke, R,
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Gurden, Harold
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Walker, Peter


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Partridge, E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wall, Patrick


Harvey, John (Waithamstow, E.)
Peel, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Hastings, Stephen
Percival, Ian
Webster, David


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hendry, Forbes
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Whitelaw, William


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pitman, Sir James
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hiley, Joseph
Pitt, Miss Edith
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pott, Percivall
Wise, A. R.


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M. L.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hobson, John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Woodnutt, Mark


Holland, Philip
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Woollam, John


Hollingworth, John
Quennell, Mice J. M.
Worsley, Marcus


Hornby, R. P.
Ramsden, James
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Rawlinson, Peter



Hulbert, Sir Norman
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Jackson, John
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Michael Hamilton.


James, David
Rippon, Geoffrey





NOES


Albu, Austen
Fitch, Alan
Jeger, George


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)


Baird, John
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Beaney, Alan
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Benson, Sir George
Ginsburg, David
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Blackburn, F.
Gourlay, Harry
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Blyton, William
Grey, Charles
Kelley, Richard


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
King, Dr. Horace


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Bowles, Frank
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Boyden, James
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
MacColl, James


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hannan, William
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Harrison, Brian (Malden)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hayman, F. H.
Manuel, A. C.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Mayhew, Christopher


Callaghan, James
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mendelson, J. J.


Cliffe, Michael
Hilton, A. V.
Millan, Bruce


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Holman, Percy
Milne, Edward


Darling, George
Holt, Arthur
Mitchison, G. R.


Deer, George
Hoy, James H.
Moody, A. S.


Diamond, John
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morris, John


Donnelly, Desmond
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Driberg, Tom
Hunter, A. E.
Oram, A. E.


Edelman, Maurice
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Owen, Will


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Padley, W. E.


Evans, Albert
Janner, Sir Barnett
Paget, R. T,


Fernyhough, E.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pargiter, G. A.







Parker, John
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Warbey, William


Parkin, B. T.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Weitzman, David


Pavitt, Laurence
Skeffington, Arthur
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Peart, Frederick
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Pentland, Norman
Small, William
Wigg, George


Probert, Arthur
Sorensen, R, W.
Willey, Frederick


Redhead, E. C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Reid, William
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Reynolds, G. W.
Stones, William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rhodes, H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Willis, E, G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Symonds, J. B.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, w.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Woof, Robert


Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Thomson, C. M. (Dundee, E.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Ross, William
Thornton, Ernest



Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Short, Edward
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. Lawson.


Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — MISS AUDREY BONSER (DEATH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

10.37 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I want to raise the case of Miss Audrey Bonser, who was a constituent of mine and died of cancer on 26th December, 1961. Two days ago, before I had time fully to examine this case, I felt that a recital of the facts and a few observations might be sufficient to do justice to this case, but since then information has been sent to me about this and other cases which make me feel much more truculent.
Miss Bonser went to the doctor for the first time last July. She was being treated for nervous disorder and received medicine for some time. On 17th September, she signed on as unfit for work. The doctor said that he diagnosed nervous disorder, but that he was not quite sure and if a period of rest did not cure her trouble she might have to go to hospital for a much more detailed examination.
On 16th October, she was sent to the regional medical board and was examined by a doctor. She told him that she had been suffering from pains which had increased in intensity over a period of time, and that her abdomen was swollen. In spite of this, the doctor recommended to the insurance officer that she was fit for work, and Miss Bonser was therefore pronounced guilty of virtually sponging on the National Insurance Fund.
She continued to visit the doctor, and went to work for a couple of days, but found that she was unable to carry on and stayed at home. She received no benefit at all while she was at home. She was then sent to a nerve specialist, and after, according to her, precisely the same kind of examination as she had been given by the regional doctor, she was told by him that she would have to go to the pathological department.
When she went there, it was found that she was suffering from this incurable disease, that it was in an advanced stage,

and that it must have been in an advanced stage when she was originally examined by the regional doctor.
After she died, her father came to my home and reported the matter to me. He also got in touch with the Press. I asked him to put the case on paper, and I sent the letter that he wrote to the Ministry of Health for its comments. I wanted to get my facts right and not say anything that was out of place.
I am not saying this disrespectfully, but the letter that I sent to the Ministry of Health was treated almost like a shuttlecock between the Ministry of Health on one side and the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance an the other. I eventually received replies from both Ministries. They were totally unsatisfactory both to me and the girl's father. In the father's opinion, and I agree with him, both letters avoided giving direct replies to the questions that he had asked.
I wrote to the Ministry of Health and expressed my dissatisfaction with the reply I had received and gave my opinion of the case. I asked that the doctor who had been engaged to examine patients at the regional board level should be removed from that task. I go further tonight. I repeat that request, and I ask publicly that his name should be given. I do not know his name, nor the name of the panel doctor who first prescribed for this young lady.
I make those demands, first, because the girl's abdomen was swollen and it therefore must have been obvious that she was in no condition to work, and secondly, because the second examination was similar to that which she underwent at the hospital.
The examination of the regional hospital doctor was exactly the same as that of the nerve specialist, and the father suggests—and I agree—that if the latter examination revealed that there was something of a very serious nature, the other one, made a short time before, should have revealed the same thing. In the opinion of the father, for whom I am speaking tonight, this was clearly a case of incompetence by the regional hospital doctor. I also want to discover whether the panel doctor was incompetent. I understand that when a patient is examined by a regional hospital doctor a report has to be submitted by the panel


doctor who examined the patient previously, and I should like to know what was contained in the panel doctor's report on this occasion. It would help in understanding the case and also in apportioning blame, if any has to be apportioned.
Where do we go from here? The girl is dead, and we cannot do anything about that. I do not suggest that the regional hospital doctor or the panel doctor could have saved her life; that is beyond the bounds of possibility. But I assert, whether the Ministry likes it or not—and whether the B.M.A. likes it or not—that the examination of patients by regional hospital doctors leaves a great deal to be desired. It is shockingly bad. In many cases I submit that it is bad almost to the point of criminal neglect, and I am not saying that merely because of the evidence in this case.
It was, perhaps, fortunate that the first people to know of this case were the Press. It was the Press who made it public. My name was used by the Press, and the result has been a spate of letters dealing with all kinds of cases. The Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that it has been impossible for me to examine them all in such a way as to be able to come to a conclusion whether they justify being mentioned in a report to her, but I have examined two cases in detail, both concerning patients who were sent back to work by regional hospital doctors but who died within a fortnight.
We cannot allow this situation to continue. I am not blaming anybody for making a mistake; it is very easy for a doctor to make a mistake. But where, as in the case of Miss Bonser and the two others to which I have referred, there is at least a prima facie case for absence from work but the panel doctor nevertheless recommends to the insurance officer that the patient concerned should return to work, that panel doctor should answer for the consequences.
I think that this case should be examined. I will go further, although this may not be to the liking of the British Medical Association. I think that there should be a responsible body in this country, apart from the B.M.A., which could examine these cases, to

ensure that when such complaints as this are registered, the patient gets a fair deal. That happens in the case of dentists. I will not go into the details, but an examination takes place in relation to dentists. I do not think that it would be out of place if some Ministry of Health regulation provided for the setting up of a body to inquire into cases of this kind.
Miss Bonser is dead, and we can only express our sorrow to her parents. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the pain and suffering caused by this case extends beyond the family of Miss Bonser. Although I concede that this type of examination is necessary, these events have caused anxiety to many people who are concerned about the hasty way in which the examinations take place. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will inquire into the matter, if only to allay the fears of some people regarding the regional medical board particularly in the Sheffield area.

10.53 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): This is a very sad case, and I appreciate the very natural desire of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) to try to help the family of Miss Bonser. As he has said, her death was unavoidable. But I realise that her parents are troubled by the fact that while she was ill under the care of her own doctor, and away from work and drawing sick benefit, she was referred for independent medical examination and considered fit for work, despite the fact that later events proved that even at that time she must have been suffering from cancer of the stomach.
In order to help, I must explain what happens. Doctors from my Ministry's regional medical service provide an independent medical referee service for certain Government Departments, including the Ministry of Pensions and National Service. The Ministry of Pensions and National Service refers cases for advice on the insured person's fitness for work. This work is the responsibility of the whole-time regional medical staff of my Ministry, assisted as necessary by part-time medical referees. This service is not new. It was established as long ago as 1920 to


meet the need for an independent referee service to help approved societies in the administration of the sickness benefit then available under the old National Health Insurance Scheme. It was continued under the present National Insurance Scheme which began to operate in 1948. I think the hon. Member would agree that it is an important and necessary measure for safeguarding National Insurance funds. I need not emphasise that the selection of patients for this further opinion is the responsibility of the Ministry of Pensions and National Service.
References are generally made where the illness shown on the medical certificate is normally one of short duration but has continued longer than usual. This is the normal method of dealing with short-time claims. Before a person is called for examination by one of the examining officers of my Department, the general practitioner is asked for an up-to-date opinion on the condition of the patient, whether the patient is fit to travel and whether the general practitioner wishes to be present at the examination. This is to protect the patient. Where the general practitioner says that the patient is not fit he or she is not called for examination. The opinions given by referees are entirely their own independent professional judgments and are given in an advisory capacity only. They report their conclusions to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and the patient's own doctor. This again, I stress, is an important point. The general practitioner is under no compulsion to accept these views about his patient. He is entirely free to maintain his own opinions and may—and sometimes does—continue to certify that the patient is not fit for work.
To come to the particular case of Miss Bonser. As the hon. Member said, the first certificate for her was dated 19th September, 1961, and it showed the illness as nervous debility. She was referred under the arrangements I have just described, by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for a second opinion on her capacity for work on 4th October. This was because the illness shown on her certificate was normally one of short duration. She was seen and examined on 16th

October. Her own doctor had been advised and asked for a report and—this answers the point the hon. Member has put to me tonight—this report indicated dyspepsia of nervous origin. It made no reference to any hospital investigation or proposed reference to hospital.
The reports which I have examined show that our examining officer made a most careful examination with a view to ascertaining the precise cause of her symptoms. His responsibility, as I ask the hon. Member to remember, was to give an opinion on her capacity for work, and he reached the conclusion that at that date she was fit for her normal occupation of a clerk. The records show that nothing abnormal could be discovered on examination of the abdomen. Miss Bonser was described as of average height and build and her weight was normal at the time of examination. There seems no doubt that the examining doctor gave his opinion in good faith.
I am advised—and I made careful inquiry about this—that the diagnosis of carcinoma of the stomach is notoriously difficult in some cases where the characteristics of the disease do not show themselves outwardly. The notes made at the examination show that this was unfortunately the case with Miss Bonser, and her age was another reason which added to the difficulty of diagnosis. Cancer of the stomach apparently is most unusual at this comparatively early age of 31. Following this examination, Miss Bonser went back to her doctor who had been advised of the conclusions of the examining doctor. He, her own doctor, decided that she was fit for work and he gave her a final certificate on 17th October, 1961.

Mr. Winterbottom: Was that her own panel doctor?

Miss Pitt: Yes, indeed. That is the general practitioner, her own family doctor. He gave her a final certificate which brought sickness benefit to an end. Sickness benefit had been paid from 18th September to 17th October. Her own doctor told Miss Bonser that she could appeal if she were not satisfied, but she said that she did not want to appeal and would rather go back to work. I think that the hon. Member


understands the appeal machinery of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.
Her return to work, therefore, was on the responsibility and the certificate of her own doctor. Her case did not go to the insurance officer, the first of the independent authorities who decide claims, or any of the following machinery of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, and even had it done so the responsibility would be on the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and not on the examining doctor.
Three weeks later Miss Bonser went to her own doctor again, with her mother, and her mother said that she was not satisfied.

Mr. Winterbottom: She had been every week in between.

Miss Pitt: This is the information which I have gained of the interim between her being signed off and eventually going to hospital for the consultations which the hon. Member described.
She went to her own doctor with her mother, and her mother said that she was not satisfied. Her doctor then sent her to a consultant psychiatrist who said that she was suffering from nervous dyspepsia. A week later her own doctor found that she had free fluid in the abdomen, and he sent her this time to a gynaecologist on 14th November. The specialist said that he could not tell whether this fluid came from the pelvis or higher up, and she had an operation, and the rest of the story we know, because the hon. Member explained it tonight.
The hon. Member referred to the question of sickness benefit. A further claim was made for sickness benefit from 13th November, when the certificate showed hospital investigation, and payment continued to the date of her death on 26th December. She therefore had payment of sickness benefit for the two periods for which certificates were presented. I gather that the hon. Member is worried about the intervening period, after she had seen the examining doctor and then her own general practitioner and had been signed off, and the date subsequently when she went to hospital. I have made some inquiries in order to try to help him, and I am

told by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance that if in that intervening period she was not at work and if the father likes to put in a retrospective claim, it will be considered.
The hon. Member raised the question of giving the name of the doctor, but I think that such a question does not arise. The responsibility does not rest on the examining doctor for any of the relevant actions, and therefore I do not feel that his name should be given here tonight. But, of course, I have looked into the general position in Sheffield—another point which the hon. Member raised—in order to satisfy myself that the machinery which my Department operates as agents for the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is providing a proper service.
First, I would say that I am unable to discover any previous complaint from the Sheffield area. The hon. Member has said tonight that he has two other cases, and if he likes to send them to me or, more properly, to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, who is sitting here tonight, we are certainly prepared to look into them.

Mr. Winterbottom: There is only one from my division.

Miss Pitt: Perhaps the hon. Member will observe the courtesies of the House and send the other to the hon. Member concerned. In any event, it can be looked into. I want to reassure the hon. Member about his own area. In the past six months, 1,848 persons have been examined under this machinery in the Sheffield area. Of these, 30·9 per cent. were considered fit for work following the examination, and this figure is approximately the same as that for the country as a whole for 1961. This does not suggest that there is anything different in Sheffield. In fact, in the East Midlands division for the six months to 31st December, 1961, the appropriate corresponding figure was 34·29 per cent. Therefore, Sheffield is lower than the general figure for the East Midlands, though on a par with the country as a whole.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of policy—deliberate or otherwise—of doctors of the regional


medical service in Sheffield or elsewhere trying to send back to work people who are ill or unfit to resume their normal occupations.
I find this a sad case. I understand how the parents feel to lose a daughter at this age, and I can appreciate why the hon. Gentleman is so anxious that they should understand all that preceded

her death. I am aware that sympathy is not enough. I have tried to make inquiries, and I hope that the explanation I have given tonight will be of some comfort to the parents of Miss Bonser.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.